Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tiffany Mason, the most recent Senate page from Michigan, for her hard work, dedication, and enthusiasm in carrying out her daily responsibilities over the last several months. It is, in part, through the efforts of our Senate pages that the Senate is able to efficiently carry out its important work, which includes receiving messages from the President and allowing for the introduction of bills. Pages are also asked to complete a variety of other important tasks when the Senate is in session. Senator Daniel Webster has the distinction of selecting the first Senate page more than 150 years ago. In those days, as is the case today, a page was chosen and sponsored by a Senator. During his or her time in Washington, a page is not only expected to serve the needs of the Senate but also to attend school and complete the necessary requirements of high school juniors. Thirty pages from across the country serve as Senate pages each session. In May 1971 the first two female pages were selected to serve in the Senate. Tiffany is a part of a fine tradition and a select group that has had the great privilege to serve as a U.S. Senate page. She has proven through her work in the Senate and through her many successes in the past that she, like many of her peers, are some of our Nation's best and brightest. Tiffany has received several awards and has participated in many different activities over the course of her high school career. These experiences have served her well and will continue to do so as she continues to learn, grow, and mature. The work that has been done by this page class is valued by all in the Senate. I know my colleagues join me in thanking Tiffany Mason and the rest of the page class for a job well done. I wish her the very best in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the opportunity has finally come to make the record right--to begin to balance what has been an imbalance. We have come to this floor to apologize for the silence of the U.S. Senate regarding the lynching of our fellow Americans, primarily African Americans. Tonight, we begin to redress the lynching madness that swept our country from the 1880s and which continued unchecked through the 1950s, and even as recently as the 1960s. It is estimated that nearly 5,000 Americans were lynched during this time. African Americans were strung up from trees, burned at the stake, mutilated in the town square for all to see. Those who committed such atrocities went without punishment. Justice was not only denied, it was ignored, abdicated, and overthrown. The victims were not just those who were killed. A lynching is not only a heinous and savage act against one person; it is an act of violence against the rights of an entire community. Its victims are everyone who hears its hateful message. Ida B. Wells-Barnett explained well the nature of lynching in America. Born in Mississippi a few months before the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Ida Wells-Barnett was the editor and co- owner of a Black newspaper called ``The Free Speech and Headlight.'' In 1900, she wrote: Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent people who openly avow that there is an ``unwritten law'' that justifies them in putting human beings to death without complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal. Lynching was an attack on the rule of law itself, and yet the U.S. Senate did not act against it. Antilynching legislation was called for by seven U.S. Presidents. The House of Representatives passed three antilynching bills. This body passed none, though many were introduced. In 1935, Senator Edward Costigan spoke in favor of an antilynching bill he had introduced with Senator Robert Wagner. Having made a careful yet passionate argument for his proposed legislation, Senator Costigan concluded: If one can mention, much less picture such appalling facts as I have recited without being revolted, he is indeed hardened out of all semblance to humanity. They destroy our claim to civilized life. They must not be permitted to multiply. Every repetition of mob brutality denies its victims the right of speedy and impartial trial and the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Constitution. No man can be permitted to usurp the combined functions of judge, jury, and executioner of his fellow men; and whenever any state fails to protect such equal rights, I submit that the federal government must do its utmost to repair the damage which is then chargeable to us all. Faced with both the opportunity and the responsibility to act, the Senate simply failed. That failure is a permanent stain on this body, and we are not trying to wipe it away. We only hope that acknowledging it will allow for some national healing. To the families of victims of lynching who sit in the Senate Gallery tonight, let me offer my personal sorrow over the injustice you have suffered. I hope our action today will bring you some comfort, though it cannot ease your loss. As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I also want to say a special word about the members of the American Armed Forces who were lynched in the country they had defended. Following both World War I and World War II, returning soldiers were lynched, many while still wearing their military uniforms. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation. There would be no new respect for these brave African Americans who had fought for our country, only the old order of injustice and hate. Mr. President, it is easy for the Senate to apologize now. This is not a tough decision, only a somber one. But there are still tough decisions ahead. While we cannot bring justice to those who were lynched, we can continue to bring about the just society that was mocked and shredded by acts of lynching. In that spirit, I hope that today is part of a larger effort toward racial reconciliation and justice. We can continue by honoring the Tuskegee Airmen with the Congressional Gold Medal for their contributions to our Nation's defense and to its progress, as proposed in bipartisan legislation, S. 392, introduced on February 16, 2005. And we can make progress on so many vital issues--education, health care, jobs--that would improve the lives of African Americans and all Americans. We have moved past lynching, but we have not reached justice. I hope we will not fail to act. In closing, I would like to thank my able colleagues, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator George Allen, for their diligence and leadership in bringing this healing resolution, which I was pleased to cosponsor, before the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am supporting the two nominations before the Senate. With today's confirmation of William Pryor, 211 of 218 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed. After Richard Griffin's and David McKeague's upcoming confirmation, 213 of 218 of President Bush's nominees will have been confirmed. What a contrast to the way that President Clinton's nominees were treated. More than 60 of President Clinton's nominees never received a vote in the Judiciary Committee. In the battles over judicial nominations that have consumed this body in recent years, the way those nominees were treated stands out as uniquely unfair. Even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that treatment of President Clinton's nominees was ``inexcusable.'' For the last 4 years of the Clinton Presidency, there were Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit court. The Republican majority refused to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee on Clinton nominations for those vacancies. Indeed, one of those nominees waited longer for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee than any nominee in American history had--a hearing she ultimately never received. Her nomination was held up for some time by former Senator Spencer Abraham in an attempt to secure the nomination of his preferred candidate to a second position. Then, the seats were kept vacant because the majority hoped that a Republican would be elected President and would put forward his nominees for those vacancies. When President Bush came to office, he not only filled positions which should have been filled by nominees of President Clinton, his nominees were allowed to go forward even over the objections of their home state senators. Today, we will confirm two of President Bush's Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court. They should be confirmed and I will vote for them. In deciding to move on, we should not excuse the treatment of President Clinton's nominees or the refusal of President Bush to adopt a bipartisan solution to the acknowledged wrong. A brief history of the Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit will also hopefully prevent a recurrence of the tactic which was used against Clinton nominees-- denial of a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, year after year--not just in the last year of a presidential term but in the years before the last year of a presidential term. Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White was nominated to fill a Sixth Circuit vacancy on January 7, 1997. Some months later, Senator Leahy, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, came to this floor to urge that the Committee act on her nomination. This would be the first of at least sixteen statements on the Senate floor by Senator Leahy regarding the Sixth Circuit nominations over a 4 year period. A year and a half after Judge White was nominated--Senator Leahy came to the floor and said: ``At each step of the process, judicial nominations are being delayed and stalled.'' His plea was again ignored and the 105th Congress ended without a hearing for Judge White. On January 26, 1999, President Clinton again submitted Judge White's nomination. That day, I urged both Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to recognize that fundamental fairness dictated that she receive an early hearing in the 106th Congress, having received no hearing in the 105th. On March 1, 1999, a second Michigan vacancy on the Sixth Circuit opened up. The next day, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, reiterated that nominations were being stalled by the majority. The reason that the majority in the Judiciary Committee did not hold a hearing on Judge White was because of Senator Abraham's opposition, based on his effort to obtain the nomination of Jerry Rosen, a district court judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, to the second Michigan opening on the Sixth Circuit. President Clinton, however, in September of 1999, decided to nominate Kathleen McCree Lewis to that seat. Soon thereafter, I spoke with Senator Abraham about the Lewis and White nominations, Senator Leahy again urged the Committee to act, calling the treatment of judicial nominees ``unconscionable.'' On November 18, 1999, I again urged Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to proceed with hearings for the two Michigan nominees. At that time I noted that Judge White had been waiting for nearly 3 years and that the confirmation of the two women was ``essential for fundamental fairness.'' 1999 ended without Judiciary Committee hearings. In February of 2000 Senator Leahy spoke again on the Senate floor about the multiple vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. Less than two weeks later, I again made a personal plea to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to grant a hearing to the Michigan nominees. On March 20, 2000, the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit sent a letter to Chairman Hatch expressing concerns about a reported statement from a member of the Judiciary Committee that ``due to partisan considerations'' there would be no more hearings or votes on vacancies for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals during the Clinton administration. His concern would turn out to be well founded. On May 2, 2000, I sent a note to Chairman Hatch, but neither Judge White's nor Ms. Lewis's nominations were placed on the Committee's hearing agenda. Over the next several months, Senator Leahy went to the floor ten more times to urge action on the Michigan nominees. I also raised the issue on the Senate floor on several occasions. In the fall of 2000, in a final attempt to move the nominations of the two Michigan nominees, I met with Majority Leader Lott to discuss the situation. On September 12, I sent him a letter saying ``the nominees from Michigan are women of integrity and fairness. They have been stalled in this Senate for an unconscionable amount of time without any stated reason.'' Neither the meeting with Senator Lott nor the letter prompted the Judiciary Committee to act on the nominations, and the 106th Congress ended without hearings for either woman. By this point, Judge White's nomination had been pending for nearly 4 years--the longest period of time that any circuit court nominee had waited for a hearing in the history of the United States Senate. Ms. Lewis's nomination had been pending for about a year and a half. The experience of Kent Markus of Ohio will shed some light on these events. Professor Markus was nominated by President Clinton in February of 2000, to fill an Ohio vacancy on the sixth Circuit. Both home state senators indicated their approval of his nomination. Nevertheless, he was not granted a Judiciary Committee hearing. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Professor Markus recollected the events: ``. . . To their credit, Senator DeWine and his staff and Senator Hatch's staff and others close to him were straight with me. Over and over again they told me two things: (1) There will be no more confirmations to the 6th Circuit during the Clinton Administration, and (2) This has nothing to do with you; don't take it personally--it doesn't matter who the nominee is, what credentials they may have or what support they may have. And Professor Markus continued: ``. . . On one occasion, Senator DeWine told me ``This is bigger than you and it's bigger than me.'' Senator Kohl, who had kindly agreed to champion my nomination within the Judiciary Committee, encountered a similar brick wall . . . The fact was, a decision had been made to hold the vacancies and see who won the presidential election. With a Bush win, all those seats could go to Bush rather than Clinton nominees. The logic of it was quite straightforward, and unfair. Senator Stabenow and I are not alone in our view that what occurred with respect to the Michigan nominees was fundamentally unfair. As I said, even Judge Gonzales, then-White House Counsel, has acknowledged that the treatment of some nominees during the Clinton administration was ``inexcusable.'' Given that belief, Senator Stabenow and I had hoped that the Bush administration might consider a bipartisan approach and believed that simply moving forward with Bush nominees would mean the unfair tactic used against the Clinton nominees would succeed. The number of Michigan vacancies on the federal courts provided an unusual opportunity for bipartisan compromise. In an effort to achieve a fair resolution of the mistreatment of President Clinton's Michigan nominees, Senator Stabenow and I proposed a bipartisan commission to recommend nominees to the President for two of the then-four open Michigan Sixth Circuit positions. Similar commissions have successfully been used in other states. Such a commission would not guarantee the recommendation of any particular individual, much less the nomination of any particular individual, since the nomination decision is the President's alone. That proposal was rejected. The administration rejected another proposal to resolve the matter suggested by Senator Leahy and endorsed by then-Republican Governor John Engler. In the hopes of stimulating a bipartisan response, Senator Stabenow and I returned negative blue slips on President Bush's nominees. Despite past practice of not proceeding in the face of negative blue slips from home state Senators, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the nominees. In 1999, Chairman Hatch had stated, with respect to the Clinton nomination of Judge Ronnie White, ``had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge (Ronnie) White in committee, [he] would never have come to the floor under our rules, [and] that would be true whether they are Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way the Judiciary Committee has operated . . .'' During the entire Clinton Presidency, it is my understanding that not a single judicial nominee got a Judiciary Committee hearing if there was opposition by one home-state Senator, let alone two. In our case, both home-state Senators opposed proceeding with President Bush's Michigan judicial nominees absent a bipartisan approach, but the Committee held hearings anyway. So, the unreturned blue slips of one Republican Senator was enough to block Judiciary Committee consideration of two nominees by a Democratic President. But despite negative blue slips of both home State Democratic Senators, hearings were held for Sixth Circuit nominations of President Bush. That is inconsistent and unfair. Mr. President, each of us who was here during that time knows what happened to President Clinton's Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit was unfair. Senator Hatch said it accurately, and I give him credit for putting it just this way when, in July of 2004, he said the following: The two senators from Michigan have been very upset and if I'd put myself in their shoes I'd feel the same way. Well, it is time, however, to move on. And we support moving on with these two nominations and hope that in doing so, it might produce some bipartisanship and compromise. But bipartisanship cannot just be a one- way street. It requires reciprocity. In closing, I thank the many Senators who worked for a bipartisan approach to the Michigan nominees. In particular, I thank Senator Harry Reid, who, like Senator Daschle before him, got personally involved and tried to achieve a compromise. I thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary efforts over the many years. I cannot tell you how many times he came to the Senate floor to make a statement. I thank him for his efforts personally to try to resolve this matter. I also thank Senator Specter, who has recently provided some bipartisan suggestions to the White House. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to bring the results of a recent study on gun violence by a University of Michigan researcher to the attention of my colleagues. The study found that adolescents who are exposed to gun violence are more likely to carry out serious acts of violence. The study, completed by University of Michigan doctoral student Jeffrey Bingenheimer, analyzed data from more than 1,500 adolescents. The participants underwent a series of interviews over the course of several years as part of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. Among other things, initial interviews focused on exposure to firearm violence, including being shot or shot at or seeing someone else shot or shot at within the previous year. Subsequent interviews were designed to uncover whether the participant had engaged in violent acts themselves. These acts of violence were defined in the study as shooting at or shooting someone, being in a gang fight, attacking someone with a weapon, or carrying a hidden weapon. Reportedly, 23 percent of those interviewed reported being exposed to gun violence and 12 percent indicated that they had carried out violent acts themselves. Statistical analysis of the resulting data revealed that adolescents who were exposed to gun violence were more than twice as likely to carry out violent acts within the following two years. Describing the results of his study, Mr. Bingenheimer stated, ``The primary implication of these findings is that violence can be transmitted from person to person by means of exposure in the community. This makes the `epidemic of violence' metaphor seem particularly apt, and is consistent with sociological theories of violent crime as a contagious social process.'' While Congress cannot simply legislate an end to the gun violence epidemic, we can do more to support local law enforcement officials as they work to prevent gun violence in our communities. One important program, known as COPS, was created by President Clinton in 1994 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in hiring additional police officers to reduce crime through the use of community policing. Nationwide, the COPS program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through continued annual appropriations, its funding has been significantly cut. I am a cosponsor of the COPS Reauthorization Act which would continue the COPS program for another six years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year, nearly double the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. Among other things, this funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers. Having more officers on our streets helps to deter gun violence and therefore reduces the chance that adolescents are exposed to such crimes. In addition, Congress can make it more difficult for potential criminals to gain access to dangerous firearms. Under current law, when an individual buys a handgun from a licensed dealer, there are federal requirements for a background check to insure that the purchaser is not prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. However, this is not the case for all gun purchases. For example, when an individual wants to buy a handgun from another private citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no requirement that the seller ensure the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. This creates a loophole in the law, making it easy for criminals, terrorists, and other prohibited buyers to evade background checks and buy guns from private citizens often at organized gun shows. This loophole creates a gateway to the illegal market because criminals know they will not be subject to a background check when purchasing from another private citizen even at a gun show. It is important that Congress close this ``gun show loophole'' to help stop the flow of dangerous firearms to prohibited buyers who may use them in violent crimes. Much more can be done to break the cycle of gun violence that plagues many of our communities. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass common sense legislation that will help to achieve this goal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every week, thousands of truckloads of solid municipal waste are being imported into the United States for disposal in US. landfills. Most of these shipments enter at three border crossings in Michigan: Port Huron, Sault Ste. Marie, and Detroit. Canadian shipments are entering this country' without regulatory controls to protect the environment and public safety as required by a treaty between the US. and Canada. The loads of municipal solid waste are more than just a nuisance. Canada's weekly importation of thousands of truckloads of trash into Michigan is a potential threat to our environment, health, and security. I join with my colleague Senator Stabenow today in introducing S. 1198, the companion to H.R. 2491, which was reported by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Waste today. It is long overdue for Congress to address this critical issue for Michigan and the rest of the U.S. This bill has the support of the entire Michigan Congressional delegation. Our legislation requires the EPA Administrator to implement regulations enforcing terms of the United States-Canada treaty within 24 months, and it gives States the authority to regulate foreign waste transported into the U.S. until those regulations to implement and enforce the treaty become effective. Our bill implements the treaty's requirement that the Canadian environmental department notify the EPA of each shipment of waste that enters the United States. The EPA then has 30 days to object to the shipment or accept it. I believe this legislation will help to protect the health and environment of the people of Michigan. I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan initiative with the other members of our State's congressional delegation and with Gov. Jennifer Granholm. I urge the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take action on this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every week, thousands of truckloads of solid municipal waste are being imported into the United States for disposal in US. landfills. Most of these shipments enter at three border crossings in Michigan: Port Huron, Sault Ste. Marie, and Detroit. Canadian shipments are entering this country' without regulatory controls to protect the environment and public safety as required by a treaty between the US. and Canada. The loads of municipal solid waste are more than just a nuisance. Canada's weekly importation of thousands of truckloads of trash into Michigan is a potential threat to our environment, health, and security. I join with my colleague Senator Stabenow today in introducing S. 1198, the companion to H.R. 2491, which was reported by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Waste today. It is long overdue for Congress to address this critical issue for Michigan and the rest of the U.S. This bill has the support of the entire Michigan Congressional delegation. Our legislation requires the EPA Administrator to implement regulations enforcing terms of the United States-Canada treaty within 24 months, and it gives States the authority to regulate foreign waste transported into the U.S. until those regulations to implement and enforce the treaty become effective. Our bill implements the treaty's requirement that the Canadian environmental department notify the EPA of each shipment of waste that enters the United States. The EPA then has 30 days to object to the shipment or accept it. I believe this legislation will help to protect the health and environment of the people of Michigan. I am pleased to have worked on this bipartisan initiative with the other members of our State's congressional delegation and with Gov. Jennifer Granholm. I urge the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take action on this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize 10 individuals in Michigan for their dedication and service to public education. The Utica Community School District can be proud of these men and women for their devotion to improving the lives of countless young people. The Utica Community School District encompasses Utica, most of Sterling Heights, Shelby Township and parts of Ray, Washington, and Macomb Townships. It is the second largest school district in Michigan, with a current enrollment of over 29,000 students. Utica takes pride in its educational standards, dedication, and service to its students. These goals would not have been possible without the efforts of the following 10 school administrators who have a combined 300-plus years of service and have collectively touched the lives of more than 500,000 children over the course of their careers. The accomplishments and the impacts on public education these individuals have had over the years are numerous and impressive. Each of these individuals has played a vital role in building strong relationships with students, parents, teachers, and the community at large in this diverse and vibrant region of southeast Michigan. They exemplify the necessary dedication, determination, and professionalism to foster individualized attention to each student. I am pleased to honor each of them: David A. Berube, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources; Vivian V. Constand, Director of Elementary Education; Joseph F. Jeannette, Assistant Director of Elementary Education; Susan E. Meyer, Director of Secondary Education; Glenn A. Patterson, Director of Human Resources; Diane M. Robinson, Supervisor of Employee Benefits; Nancy M. Searing, Assistant Director of Secondary Education; Linda M. Theut, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent, Judith M. Wagner, Supervisor of Special Education; and John S. Zoellner, Director of Fiscal Services. On July 1, 2005, these individuals will retire from their respective careers in education, and their leadership and talents will surely be missed. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating these 10 distinguished individuals for their many efforts throughout the years, and to recognize their record of service to the Utica community schools and to the surrounding community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to plans to honor a distinguished religious leader in Michigan, Monsignor Stanley Milewski. Monsignor Milewski will be honored at a special service of thanksgiving followed by a dinner reception on Sunday, June 5, 2005, on the St. Mary's Orchard Lake Schools campus. The tribute will mark his 50th anniversary as a Polish- American diocesan priest. Since his ordination into the priesthood on June 4, 1955, by Cardinal Edward Mooney in Detroit, Monsignor Milewski has been an important part of the history of the Polish pastoral ministry in Michigan and in the United States. Monsignor Milewski has earned the respect and admiration of people throughout Michigan and across the United States, and is especially admired by the approximately three-quarters of a million people of Polish descent who are part of the Archdiocese of Detroit, because of his devotion to service and confident leadership through years of ministry. Born in Detroit to Polish immigrants on November 30, 1929, Monsignor Milewski received his primary and secondary education in Catholic parochial schools in Detroit. He earned his undergraduate degree from St. Mary's College of Orchard Lake and completed graduate studies at St. John's Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, MI, and at SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary in Orchard Lake. SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary enjoys the distinction of being the only Polish seminary in the United States and was founded in Detroit in 1885. Monsignor Milewski was awarded an honorary doctorate degree from Alliance College in Pennsylvania and an honorary doctorate of theology degree from Madonna University in Livonia, MI. He was later appointed to the faculty of the Orchard Lake Schools in January 1957, and his responsibilities have included procurator-treasurer, teacher, athletic director, and vice rector. He served as chancellor of the Lake Orchard Schools from 1977 to 2000. Monsignor Milewski's appointments include the Prelate of Honor of His Holiness John Paul II on March 20, 1990, Honorary Canon of the Diocese of Plock, and Honorary Canon of the Diocese of Lomza. In addition to the many recognitions and awards he has received, Monsignor Milewski was honored to have the Pope visit the 120-acre Orchard Lake Schools campus in 1969. Of that visit, Monsignor said, ``From that point on, I really got to know what a great man he was and what a tremendous memory he had.'' He recalls how the Pope once remarked that the seminary at Orchard Lakes was the most beautiful Polish seminary in the world. The campus includes the John Paul II center, a museum of artifacts and photos. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Monsignor Milewski on his faithfulness to his calling and on his many achievements in the pastoral ministry. I am pleased to express my sincere appreciation to him on his 50th anniversary and to wish him many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, legislation has been introduced that would repeal nearly every gun safety law in the District of Colombia. Sadly, the bill was introduced during the celebration of National Police Week and just days after 153 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty in 2004 were honored at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The misnamed ``District of Colombia Personal Protection Act'' would repeal local laws in Washington, DC that ban the sale and possession of unregistered firearms, require firearm registration, impose commonsense safe storage requirements, and ban semiautomatic weapons in the District. Should this bill become law, those who live and work in our Nation's capital as well as tourists and other visitors would face a greater threat of gun violence. In a statement last week, DC Mayor Anthony Williams said, ``I am incensed by any congressional proposal that uses District residents as pawns. I am incensed by any proposal that assaults Home Rule. And I am incensed by any proposal that is an insult to the memory of the people who have died in this city due to gun violence--in particular the three children who have died from gun violence this year.'' Instead of interfering in local affairs in Washington, DC, the Senate should focus its energies on legislation on improving the safety of the families and communities across the Nation. The Senate has yet to consider several common sense gun safety measures during this Congress. Among these are proposals that would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban, prohibit the sale of the Five-Seven armor-piercing handgun, and help investigators working to prevent attacks by terrorists using high powered weapons. I urge the Senate to take up and pass these bills to make our Nation safer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the names of the people that he sought information on are incredibly relevant to the question of why he sought information on those people, what was his motive. There is a pattern here, a pattern of punishment of people if they did not provide analysis that he agreed with, if they disagreed with his views. And when he asks for those intercepts, he may have had a perfectly benign reason for doing it. On the other hand, it may have been part of this totally unacceptable pattern. But the Senate has the same right to know what he knew and he asked for, which was intercepts of particular people who were either involved in the conversation or referred to in the conversation. If the Senate doesn't insist on that right for every Member of this body, we are a lesser body. We should insist upon that for Members who agree with us or not. This is an institutional issue of great magnitude.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, my good friend from Minnesota. If you agree that the Senate is entitled to this information, but not now--if not now, when? The reason for seeking this information relates to the nomination of Mr. Bolton. That is why this is so relevant and important. I think the members of the Foreign Relations Committee have been seeking this information for many weeks. So it is not as though this is a last-minute request which is holding up the vote on a nomination or would hold it up until we receive that information. By the way, I happen to believe--and I don't know if my good friend from Connecticut agrees with me--that if the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee saw the names and concluded that none of those names had any relationship to this nomination because none of the names are people he tried to get fired, transfer, or punish, that would satisfy me. But the administration knows the names. John Bolton got the names. But the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman won't be given those names and they are redacted. I believe the Senate cannot accept that standard and hold ourselves up as a body that is equal in power to the executive branch. We cannot. We cannot say to ourselves that this body will look at all relevant evidence that relates to confirmation before we give our consent to it and protect the Members' requests for information if we do not insist that at least the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee have access to the names and see whether those names are relevant to this nomination in terms of the specific people John Bolton tried to punish or get transferred. I find this really intolerable, incredible, that we as a body will not stand with a legitimate request for relevant information that relates to a pending nomination that was promptly and timely made.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Chairman Lugar and to Ranking Member Biden from Senator Rockefeller dated May 25 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for 20 minutes. I am very sorry the Senator from Kansas left. Let me first ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that transcripts of two public hearings where I asked questions of General Hayden, relative to the process of seeking identification of people who are referred to or who participate in intercepted conversations--that those unclassified, public hearing transcripts, or portions thereof, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. The journalist Carl Bernstein once said, ``We have a national memory in this country of about 7 minutes.'' Once more, he has been proven right. Here we are, 2 years after one of the worst intelligence disasters in our history, debating the nomination of a man to the U.N. ambassadorship, a man who has a track record of attempting to manipulate intelligence by seeking to punish intelligence analysts who do not support his view. We are so slow to learn from our history, and we are so quick to repeat it. The issue here--and I am sure my friend from Connecticut would agree--is not the issue of whether or not policymakers have a right to disagree with analysts; of course, they do. We all should challenge analysts and analysis. We do not do enough of it. I happen to agree with the Senator from Kansas on that. That is not the issue. The question is whether or not we manipulate intelligence or try to manipulate intelligence by trying to force analysts, who are supposed to be objective, to reach conclusions with which they don't agree in order to get support for our own policy positions. That is what is unacceptable. It is not unacceptable to disagree with analysts or not to follow their analysis. That is not at all unacceptable. That is what policymakers are here for, to make judgments, to pick between analyses. But what is unacceptable is what Mr. Bolton did repeatedly, which is to try to get analysts, who are supposed to be objective, fired or removed or transferred because they would not come to the conclusion to which he wanted them to come. That is the issue here with Mr. Bolton. This administration does not hold people who politicize intelligence to account. Following the major intelligence failures before 9/11 and Iraq, the administration has failed to hold anybody accountable for either failure. In fact, the President gave one of the people most responsible for the intelligence disaster before Iraq, the CIA Director, a gold medal. Now the President wants to give John Bolton a promotion, although John Bolton has, in unconscionable--and I believe even potentially dangerous--ways attempted to get intelligence analysts to shape their views to his views and, if they wouldn't bend, to break them. We know what happens when intelligence is politicized. Before the Iraq war, ``a slam dunk'' was the CIA assessment, although the underlying intelligence contained nuances, qualifications, and caveats. Too often the CIA told the administration what it thought the administration wanted to hear. The July 2004 bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the following: Most of the major key judgments in the intelligence community's October 2002 ``National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Mass Destruction,'' either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting. Just this month, newspapers reported on leaked notes from a July 23, 2002, meeting of the British Prime Minister and his senior national security staff. According to the note, the head of British foreign intelligence told Prime Minister Blair, 7 months before the war, that President Bush: . . . wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Those are contemporaneous notes, prior to the war against Iraq. Such reports reinforce the view of much of the world that the administration shaped intelligence to serve policy purposes and that it strayed from the critical principle that intelligence must be objective, independent, and free from political influence. Twenty-five years ago, the Iran-Contra Committee reaffirmed the principle that, after heavy manipulation of intelligence by CIA Director Bill Casey: . . . the gathering, analysis and reporting of intelligence should be done in a way that there could be no question that the conclusions are driven by the actual facts rather than by what a policy advocate hopes those facts will be. That was 25 years ago. That was Iran-Contra. That was a bipartisan criticism of the then-CIA Director Casey. Intelligence must be gathered and analyzed in a way that there can be no doubt but that the conclusions are driven by the actual facts, not by what a policy advocate hopes those facts will be. It is going to take years of hard work to regain credibility in our intelligence assessments after the massive failures in Iraq. The Senate began that work with the intelligence reform bill in 2004. In that bill, Congress explicitly stated that national intelligence should be ``objective'' and ``independent of political considerations.'' That is the law of the land. We require the process to ensure alternative analyses within the intelligence community. The nomination of John Bolton shows a disdain for objective, independent intelligence and flies in the face of the Senate's effort to reform our intelligence system. Indeed, Mr. Bolton is the personification of what has been wrong with our system. Mr. Bolton has a deeply disturbing history of trying to punish intelligence analysts who do not agree with his views, of trying to squelch intelligence analysis and of distorting the intelligence community's view when they do not agree with his own. He is aggressive about pursuing the answer that he wants, regardless of what the objective intelligence analysts say, and his actions have had a noticeably chilling effect on the intelligence analysts that he tries to intimidate and a harmful effect on the intelligence process itself. Let's just look at his record. Mr. Bolton's view on intelligence on Cuba can be gained from an e-mail to him from his chief of staff that called the intelligence community's language on Cuba ``wimpy.'' As a policymaker, he is entitled, and was entitled, to his own view. I make it clear that what the Senator from Kansas said, I agree with. Mr. Bolton was entitled to his own view, but what he was not entitled to do was force intelligence analysts to change their views. In preparation for his speech to the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought clearance for stronger language on Cuba's biological warfare effort than the intelligence community would support. He was repeatedly rebuffed by intelligence analysts at the State Department and the CIA, and he repeatedly responded by seeking those analysts' dismissal or removal, thereby crossing a vital line, a clear line, a red line, the line between ignoring intelligence analyses which, wise or not, is his right to do as a policymaker, that is on one side of the line. But the other side of the line he must not cross, trying to intimidate analysts into shaping intelligence analyses to his liking, that is totally impermissible. It is potentially dangerous, and it is clearly on the wrong side, the unacceptable side, the intolerable side of the line. When he did not receive the analysis he wanted on Cuba, Mr. Bolton unleashed a tirade against the intelligence analyst. Soon afterwards, he went to see Tom Fingar, the Principal Deputy Assistant for INR, to try to have the analyst removed. Mr. Fingar testified that Secretary Bolton was still visibly upset during their meeting, and he said that ``he wasn't going to be told what he could say by a midlevel INR munchkin analyst.'' Mr. Bolton had made clear to the analyst he was his boss, and in essence had asked his subordinate: How dare you disagree with your superior? Mr. Fingar then testified that Mr. Bolton said he wanted the analyst ``taken off his accounts.'' Mr. Fingar protested and said ``he is our chemical and biological challenge weapons specialist, this is what he does''--making clear to Mr. Bolton that reassignment would really mean termination. Mr. Bolton persisted. The record then shows that Mr. Bolton sought the analyst's removal two more times over a 6-month period. In one of those attempts, Mr. Bolton met with then-Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, Carl Ford, who later said the following: I left that meeting with the perception that I had been asked for the first time to fire an intelligence analyst for what he had said and done. In my experience no one had ever done what Secretary Bolton did. Months later, Mr. Bolton made yet another attempt when Neil Silver became the analyst's supervisor. In his testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Bolton even conceded he was still pursuing the analyst's transfer. In his attempt to manipulate intelligence on Cuba, Mr. Bolton also tried to have a national intelligence officer from the CIA transferred. Mr. Bolton went personally to the CIA at Langley to argue for the analyst's dismissal. This is an analyst Mr. Bolton had never met, an analyst to whom he had never spoken. He had never read the analyst's work. He only knew one thing: The analyst disagreed with his views and, therefore, he had to be brought to heel. This effort, too, lasted several months and involved repeated attempts by Mr. Bolton and his staff. Former Deputy Director of the CIA John McLaughlin said of the request to dismiss the intelligence officer that it is ``the only time I had ever heard such a request.'' So we have the Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin as saying nobody has ever made a request to him, that he knew of, to dismiss an intelligence officer because of a disagreement with that officer's analysis--very similar to what Mr. Ford said at the office of the Assistant Secretary of State: ``in his experience, no one had ever done what Secretary Bolton did,'' which was to fire an intelligence analyst for what he had said and done. In the end, both analysts were supported by their supervisors and they rightfully kept their positions. The only person who should have been fired over those incidents was Mr. Bolton. Mr. Bolton's defenders like to claim no harm, no foul. That is, because none of his targets were fired despite his efforts; that everything is just fine. But the harm is in the attempt. Shooting at someone is still a crime even if you miss. As soon as a policymaker threatens an intelligence analyst with removal for disagreeing with that analyst's analysis, the harm is done. As Mr. McLaughlin testified--and this is something the Senator from Kansas either overlooked or ignores. Listen to Mr. McLaughlin's testimony: It is perfectly all right for a policymaker to express disagreement with an intelligence officer or an analyst. And it is perfectly all right for them to challenge their word vigorously. But I think it is different, McLaughlin said, to then request, because of this disagreement, that the person be transferred. That is the line. That is the line which Mr. Bolton crossed. That is the line that we ought to insist on. Every Member of this body should insist that line never be crossed. We ought to protect the right of policymakers to disagree, to question, and to ignore the analysis. We should never condone a policymaker who wants to see an analyst fired because the policymaker disagrees with that person's analysis. That is the line which is dangerous to cross because the pressure that puts on the analyst is to come up with the answer that the policymaker wants to hear. That is what is dangerous, when we hear an analyst, or you hear a CIA Administrator say it is a slam dunk, when it isn't, because he thinks that is what the policy maker wants to hear. We cannot tolerate people being fired, discharged, transferred because the policymaker disagrees with the analysis of that analyst. Mr. McLaughlin is right. It was different. It was dangerous. And according to Mr. Ford, Mr. Bolton's actions had an impact. Word of the incident, according to Mr. Ford, ``spread like wildfire among the other analysts.'' Mr. Ford testified: I can only give you my impressions, but I clearly believe that the analysts in INR were very negatively affected by this incident. They were scared. Mr. Bolton's actions were so damaging that Secretary of State Powell made a special personal visit to offer encouragement to the analysts. In his remarks, Secretary Powell specifically referred to the analysts that Mr. Bolton had targeted. He told them: Continue to call it like you see it. Continue to speak truth to power. Former Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf confirmed what should be all too clear about Mr. Bolton, that these examples of his behavior are not isolated instances but a persistent pattern. Mr. Wolf testified that Mr. Bolton sought the removal of two officers from a nonproliferation bureau over policy differences, and that, in general, officers in the bureau--and now this is Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf--that officers in the bureau ``felt undue pressure to conform to the views of [Mr. Bolton] versus the views they thought they could support.'' Events of the past few years involving the completely missed intelligence on Iraq, the distorted intelligence on Iraq, have shown that we need to be encouraging independent and alternative analysis, not squelching it. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on the intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq concluded that a lack of alternative analysis contributed to the failure of that intelligence. The committee wrote that: . . . the analysts' and collectors' chains of command, their respective agencies, from immediate services to the National Intelligence Council and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, all share responsibilities for not encouraging analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, or accurately characterize the intelligence report. ``Most importantly,'' according to the committee, they failed ``to recognize when analysts had lost their objectivity and take corrective action.'' Our Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, said corrective action should be taken when analysts lose their objectivity. Mr. Bolton tried to get analysts punished for insisting on their independence. Mr. Bolton did not value independent and objective analysis. He scorned it. He sought not to encourage alternative views but to impose his own. He did not challenge analysts. He bullied them. And he tried to fire those who disagreed with him. Now, this is not ``water cooler'' gossip about an obnoxious boss. Objective, factual analysis can make the difference between success and failure, between life and death. In the near future, we may face a crisis over North Korea's nuclear program or Iran's nuclear intentions. Congress and the public must be confident that intelligence assessments represent information that has been assessed objectively, not shaped to serve policy goals. And if we need to go to the United Nations to make a case against a country based on our intelligence about that country's dangerous activity, the world must have confidence in the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. When Bush decided to make the case against Iraq to the United Nations, he sent Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of America's most credible diplomats. Today, we are being asked to confirm one of America's least credible diplomats to serve in an important diplomatic post, where we need credibility, we need the confidence to bring other countries to our side. We should not allow a situation in which the world might question whether it is hearing a credible view or whether it is hearing a Bolton view of intelligence. Perhaps the biggest canard of the debate is that John Bolton is the best person to reform the United Nations. The U.N. needs reform, but so does the intelligence community. So does its systems. And, frankly, so does John Bolton. Any number of people would be a far more credible voice for reform at the United Nations. This is a momentous decision for this body. It is shocking and sad-- it is shocking and sad--to me that the Senate may vote on this nomination while Senators are being denied critical, relevant information that members of the Foreign Relations Committee have sought. Members of that committee have requested information about the number of requests by Mr. Bolton for the names of U.S. persons cited in intelligence intercepts. The administration has refused to provide relevant information to members of the Foreign Relations Committee and to this body. Now, those requests may be benign that Mr. Bolton made for the names of those persons and what they were saying in those intercepts. They could be part of an effort by this nominee to politicize and punish, since that was the pattern of his activity. We do not know that. But we have a right to know that. We have a right to ask why those requests were made. But this administration has refused to provide that information. We should insist on this information before we vote on this nomination. We should insist that at least the leaders of our committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, be given access to the names of people that Mr. Bolton asked the intercepts relative to. Denying the Congress and the Members of this body--

Mr. LEVIN. Denying Members of this body information is part of a woeful pattern of this administration denying information to the Congress. Even the Republicans of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees and the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee over in the House included language in their bill which says that the Bush administration should be criticized ``for its lack of responsiveness to repeated Congressional requests for information.'' Mr. President, this Senate, as a body, should insist on legitimate requests for information from its Members. Every Member--every Member-- should add his or her voice to the demand for the production of relevant documents which Senators need to decide on confirmation or for any other legitimate reason. This body will be a lesser place if we do not stand with each other when it comes to gaining access to documents, at least in the absence of a claim of executive privilege. Now, I happen to believe we should give deference to the President on the selection of his team, but deference does not mean abdication of our best judgment when a nominee crosses the line. If we do that, we will send the wrong message to anyone working in the intelligence community who sees Mr. Bolton's behavior rewarded rather than seeing him held accountable. If we do that, we will send the wrong message to the international community, to send a repeat abuser of intelligence and an abuser of intelligence analysts to be our representative at the United Nations. We have the opportunity to send a different message to the intelligence community and to the world. We can cast a vote for objectivity in intelligence, for intelligence that is free of political influence, and for accountability. But before we vote--before we vote-- legitimate requests for documents and information from Members of this body should be honored and should be supported by every Senator. That is a need which, at one time or another, each one of us has, and as an institution we should, in one voice, demand that need be met. This is a demand for relevant documents relevant to the qualifications of this nominee to be confirmed to this high office. It is a demand for documents which relate to an issue which is clearly involved in this nomination, and that has to do with a pattern, on the part of Mr. Bolton, of punishing people who analyze intelligence who do not give him an analysis that he likes and that supports his own policy. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and thank my good friend from Minnesota for yielding the time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Is there an answer to my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEVIN. Under the rules and precedents of the Senate, how many votes are required to invoke cloture and end debate on the pending nomination?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, President Harry Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history that you do not know. And so it is today with those who think this effort to amend the rules by breaking them, the nuclear option, is something new under the Sun. This is not the first time that it has been tried. Sadly, there have been a few other efforts to amend the rules by fiat, but, and this is the crucial point, the Senate has never done it. Whenever an effort was made to change the rule by fiat, it has been rejected by this body. There are procedures for amending the Senate's rules, and the Senate has always insisted that they be followed. In previous cases, the majority of Senators has stood up for that principle, often over the wishes of their own party's leader. It is my hope there will be a majority of such Senators tomorrow. I entered some of that history in the Congressional Record last week, and I will not repeat it all now. One incident stands out and bears repeating, and after doing so, I will add a second chapter to that incident. In 1949, Vice President Alben Barkley ruled that cloture applied to a motion to proceed to consideration of a bill. In other words, that rule XXII, which allows for the cutoff of debate, applied to a motion to proceed to consideration of a bill. The ruling was contrary to Senate precedent and against the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian and was made despite the fact that rule XXII, as it then existed, clearly provided only that the pending matter was subject to cloture. The Senate rejected Vice President Barkley's ruling by a vote of 46 to 41. Significantly, 23 Democratic Senators, nearly half of the Democrats voting, opposed the ruling by the Vice President of their own party. Later, the Senate, using the process provided by Senate rules, by a vote of 63 to 23, adopted a change in rule XXII to include a motion to proceed. After that rule change, changed according to the procedures for amending rules, a supermajority could end a debate on the motion to proceed to a bill, for instance, as well as ending debate on the bill itself. Last week, I quoted the words of one of the giants of Senate history, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan about that debate. This is what Senator Vandenberg said: I continue to believe that the rules of the Senate are as important to equity and order in the Senate as is the Constitution to the life of the Republic, and that those rules should never be changed except by the Senate itself, in the direct fashion prescribed by the rules themselves. Senator Vandenberg continued: One of the immutable truths in Washington's Farewell Address, which cannot be altered even by changing events in a changing world, is the following sentence: ``The Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.'' [T]he father of his country said to us, by analogy, ``the rules of the Senate which at any time exist until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole Senate are sacredly obligatory upon all.'' Senator Vandenberg continued: When a substantive change is made in the rules by sustaining a ruling by the Presiding Officer of the Senate-- and that is what I contend is being undertaken here--it does not mean that the rules are permanently changed. It simply means, that regardless of precedent or traditional practice, the rules, hereafter, mean whatever the Presiding Officer of the Senate, plus a simple majority of Senators voting at the time, want the rules to mean. We fit the rules to the occasion, instead of fitting the occasion to the rules. Therefore, in the final analysis, under such circumstances, there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes of a majority of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate. And Senator Vandenberg added: That, Mr. President, is not my idea of the greatest deliberative body in the world. . . . No matter how important [the pending issue's] immediate incidence may seem today, the integrity of the Senate's rules is our paramount concern, today, tomorrow, and so long as this great institution lives. Senator Vandenberg continued: This is a solemn decision--reaching far beyond the immediate consequence--and it involves just one consideration. What do the present Senate rules mean; and for the sake of law and order, shall they be protected in that meaning until changed by the Senate itself in the fashion required by the rules? Senator Vandenberg eloquently summarized what is at the root of the nuclear option: . . . [T]he rules of the Senate as they exist at any given time and as they are clinched by precedents should not be changed substantively by the interpretive action of the Senate's Presiding Officer, even with the transient sanction of an equally transient Senate majority. The rules can be safely changed only by the direct and conscious action of the Senate itself, acting in the fashion prescribed by the rules. Otherwise, no rule in the Senate is worth the paper that it is written on, and this so-called ``greatest deliberative body in the world'' is at the mercy of every change in parliamentary authority. Mr. President, tonight, I do more than underscore the foresightful words of Senator Vandenberg, which are all the more significant because, as he made clear, he agreed that the Senate's cloture rule needed to be changed in the fashion proposed but not by using the illegitimate process proposed of amending our rules by fiat of a Presiding Officer. There was even more to it--and it is again directly relevant to the proceeding that is pending. The year was 1948, 1 year before the Barkley ruling which I just described. Senator Vandenberg was President pro tempore of the Senate and was presented with a motion to end debate on a motion to proceed to consideration of an antipoll tax bill. Senator Vandenberg ruled, as Presiding Officer, that the then- language of rule XXII, providing a procedure for terminating debate for ``measures before the Senate'' did not apply to cutting off debate on the motion to proceed to a measure, even though he thought that it should on the merits. So he ruled against what he believed in on the merits because of his deep belief in the integrity of the rules of the Senate. And in making that ruling, again while serving as the Presiding Officer, this is what Senator Vandenberg said. The President pro tempore [that's him] finds it necessary . . . before announcing his decision, to state again that he is not passing on the merits of the poll-tax issue nor is he passing on the desirability of a much stronger cloture rule in determining this point of order. The President pro tempore is not entitled to consult his own predilections or his own convictions in the use of this authority. He must act in his capacity as an officer of the Senate, under oath to enforce its rules as he finds them to exist, whether he likes them or not. Of all the precedents necessary to preserve, this is the most important of them all. Otherwise, the preservation of any minority rights for any minority at any time would become impossible. Senator Vandenberg continued: The President pro tempore is a sworn agent of the law as he finds the law to be. Only the Senate has the right to change the law. The President pro tempore feels that he is entitled particularly to underscore this axiom in the present instance because the present circumstances themselves bring it to such bold and sharp relief. He further stated, again referring to himself: In his capacity as a Senator, the President pro tempore favors the passage of this anti-poll-tax measure. He has similarly voted on numerous previous occasions. In his capacity as President pro tempore believes that the rules of the Senate should permit cloture upon the pending motion to take up the anti-poll-tax measure, but in his capacity as President pro tempore, the senior Senator from Michigan is bound to recognize what he believes to be the clear mandate of the Senate rules and the Senate precedents; namely that no such authority presently exists. So, again, Senator Vandenberg says that he believes the rules of the Senate should be changed to permit cloture on the pending motion to take up the antipoll-tax measure, but he is bound to recognize those rules. He cannot rule against what the rules clearly provide. Senator Vandenberg then went on to say: If the Senate wishes to cure this impotence it has the authority, the power, and the means to do so. The President pro tempore of the Senate does not have the authority, the power, or the means to do so except as he arbitrarily takes the law into his own hands. This he declines to do in violation of his oath. If he did so, he would feel that the what might be deemed temporary advantage by some could become a precedent which ultimately, in subsequent practice, would rightly be condemned by all. I want to emphasize Senator Vandenberg's point for our colleagues. In the view of that great Senator, it would have been a violation of his oath of office to change the Senate rules by fiat; to rule, as Presiding Officer, contrary to the words of the Senate rules, even though he personally agreed with the proposition that the rule needed to be changed. Senator Vandenberg's ruling was a doubly difficult one because it left the Senate with no means of cutting off debate on the motion to proceed to a measure. The Senate then voted to change the rule a year or so later, with Senator Vandenberg's support, to allow for cutting off debate on the motion to proceed. Senator Vandenberg's words and his example are highly relevant to us today. The majority leader's tactic to have the Presiding Officer by decree, by fiat amend our rules by exercising the so-called nuclear option is wrong. It has always been wrong. And the Senate has rejected it in the past. I want to simply read that one last line of Senator Vandenberg one more time: In his capacity as a Senator, the President pro tempore [Senator Vandenberg] favors the passage of the anti-poll-tax measure [before him]. He has voted for it on similar occasions, he said. In his capacity as President pro tempore [he] believes the rules of the Senate should permit cloture on the pending motion to take up the . . . measure. But . . . and this is the ``but'' which everybody in this Chamber should think about-- in his capacity as President pro tempore the senior Senator from Michigan is bound to recognize what he believes to be the clear mandate of the Senate rules and the Senate precedents; namely that no such authority presently exists. For him to rule as President pro tempore against the clear meaning of rule XXII and our rules would be to take the law, the rules, into his own hands. Senator Vandenberg was not about to do that. Rule XXII is clear. It takes 60 votes to end debate on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate. It does not make an exception for nomination of judges. The nuclear option is not an interpretation of rule XXII. It runs head long into the words of rule XXII and our rules. We in this body are the custodians of a great legacy. The unique Senate legacy can be lost if we start down the road of amending our rules by fiat of a Presiding Officer. We are going to be judged by future generations for what we do here this week. Arthur Vandenberg has been judged by history as well. If you want to know what the verdict of history is relative to Arthur Vandenberg, look up when we leave this Chamber at Arthur Vandenberg's portrait in the Senate reception room alongside of just six other giants for more than 215 years of Senate history. As the present-day custodians of the great Senate tradition, we should uphold that tradition by rejecting an attempt to change the rules by arbitrary decree of the Presiding Officer instead of by the process in our rules for changing our rules. We must reject that attempt to rule by fiat instead of by duly adopted rules of the Senate. In that way, we will pass on to those who follow us a Senate that is enhanced, not diminished, by what we do here this week.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as we commemorate National Police Week, I would like to recognize the courageous men and women who serve our families and communities as law enforcement officers. I would also like to honor the memory of those who gave their lives in the line of duty. These officers, and their families, have paid the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of others. The first National Police Week was celebrated in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order designating May 15th as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as ``Police Week.'' The weeklong tribute to our Nation's local, State and Federal police officers honors those who died in the line of duty and those who continue to serve and protect us every day at great personal risk. According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, 1,649 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in the last 10 years. In 2004 alone, 153 officers lost their lives, including 7 from Michigan. As in past years, the names of these officers have been permanently engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial along side more than 17,000 others. We can further honor the sacrifices of these brave men and women by passing important legislation to support our law enforcement officers. That is why I have joined Senator Biden as a cosponsor of his COPS Reauthorization Act. The COPS program was created in 1994 and is designed to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in hiring additional police officers to reduce crime through the use of community policing. Nationwide, the COPS program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers. Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through continued annual appropriations, its funding has been significantly cut. The COPS Reauthorization Act would continue the COPS program for another 6 years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year, nearly double the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. Among other things, this funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers and improve their ability to analyze crime data and DNA evidence. At a time when we are asking more of our police departments than ever before, I believe we should be devoting more resources to the COPS program, not less. Supporting our law enforcement officers also requires that we take up and pass common sense legislation to help keep them safe while they carry out their duties. Shootings have been the leading cause of death for law enforcement officers over the last ten years and more can be done to keep powerful weapons out of the hands of violent criminals. We should listen to law enforcement groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Fraternal Order of Police which have called for reauthorization of the 1994 assault weapons ban. In addition we should be working to pass legislation to close loopholes that allow potential criminals to buy dangerous weapons like the Five-Seven armor- piercing handgun. Our law enforcement community deserves no less. In honor of their memories, the names of law enforcement officers from Michigan who died in the line of duty during 2004 are: Officer Matthew E. Bowens of Detroit, died February 16, 2004; Officer Gary Cooper Davis of Bloomfield Township, died May 13, 2004; Officer Jennifer T. Fettig of Detroit, died February 16, 2004; Deputy Sheriff Perry Austin Fillmore of Clinton County, died March 27, 2004; Deputy Sheriff John Kevin Gunsell of Otsego County, died September 12, 2004; Officer Mark Anthony Sawyers of Sterling Heights, died June 5, 2004; and Detective John Raymond Weir of Sault Ste. Marie, died November 7, 2004.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the surface transportation reauthorization bill that was reported out of the Environment and Public Works committee increased Michigan's rate of return on all highway funds apportioned to States to 92 percent of our share of contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund. However, a significant change in the funding formula was made through a substitute offered on the Senate floor which resulted in over $8 billion in apportioned highway funds being added to the bill to help certain States, including some donor States. The rate of return for all States on that $8 billion ranges from 37 percent to 550 percent. Under the substitute bill, Michigan receives the lowest rate of return of all States on the distribution of that new money. Only 12 States have a rate of return on this new money that is below 90 percent. In recognition of Michigan's disproportionately low share of the new funding, the mangers gave assurances that corrective measures would be considered before the bill was passed by the Senate. While a solution has not been identified yet, I would appreciate the assurances of the managers that in conference they will make every effort to address and correct this disproportionate treatment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, funding for transportation infrastructure such as roads, bridges and border crossings is a sound investment that increases the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic competitiveness, reduces traffic congestion, and improves air quality. Those improvements in transportation infrastructure are critical to our States, and the Federal highway money that States receive is critical for funding them. In addition, few Federal investments have as large and immediate an impact on job creation and economic growth as transportation infrastructure. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more than 47,500 jobs. Unfortunately, the formula that distributes Federal highway funds to States is antiquated and inequitable. Historically, about 20 States, including Michigan, have been ``donor'' States, sending more gas tax dollars to the highway trust fund in Washington than are returned in transportation infrastructure spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have received more transportation funding than they paid into the highway trust fund. This unfair practice began in 1956 when small States and large Western States banded together to develop a formula for distributing Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining States. Once that formula was in place, they have tenaciously defended it. At the beginning, there was some legitimacy to the concept that large, low-population, and predominately Western States need to get more funds than they contributed to the system. It was the only way that we could build a national interstate highway system. However, there is no justification today for any State getting more than its fair share. With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to determine how much a State will receive from the highway trust are simply unfair. Each time the highway bill has been reauthorized, I, along with my colleagues from the other donor States, have fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. Through these battles, some progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents back on our Federal gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar, and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5- cent minimum return for each State. Last year, we believed we had another significant victory when the Senate passed a bill that would have given donor States 95 cents on the dollar in the final year of the bill. Unfortunately, that bill died in conference due to the President's veto threat and his unwillingness to accept the funding levels in either the House or Senate bill. This year's legislation, however, would give donor States just 92 percent of their highway trust fund contributions by 2009. Although that is a small step in the right direction of closing the equity gap, we still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and other donor States. This bill is also a setback from last year's bill because it provides fewer overall transportation dollars. Last year, the Senate wisely passed a bill that would have pumped $318 billion into our transportation systems over 6 years. This year, the Senate has reduced that funding down to $295 billion. That is more than the House-passed bill of $284 billion but still less than what is needed. Michigan's rate of return would go from 90.5 percent to 92 percent immediately and remain at 92 percent for the full 5 years of this bill. Under this bill Michigan would get an annual average funding level of $1.134 billion which represents a 28-percent gain over TEA-21. We have made progress in this bill compared to current law in the ongoing fight for equity for donor States. I will continue to fight in the future, as I have in the past, looking toward full equity for Michigan. I recognize, however, that we have reduced the inequity a little more in each previous reauthorization bill, and we do so in this bill as well. This bill will bring billions of desperately needed dollars to States across the country. It will improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure and create millions of American jobs, and therefore I will support it, although its steps toward equity and fairness are very tiny indeed.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since the reintroduction of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, many law enforcement and community groups around the country have publicly stated their opposition to the bill. In Michigan alone, the bill is opposed by organizations including the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, the League of Women Voters of Michigan, the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, and local chapters of the Million Mom March. Law enforcement and community groups oppose the misnamed ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'' because it would significantly weaken the legal rights of gun violence victims. The bill would provide members of the gun industry with legal protections not enjoyed by other industries and deprive many gun violence victims with legitimate cases of their day in court. Two former Directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have added their voices to the already considerable and growing opposition to this bill. In a letter to Congress, former ATF Directors Stephen Higgins and Rex Davis state that the gun industry immunity legislation would threaten the ATF's ability to effectively enforce our Nation's gun laws. Specifically, they cite provisions in the bill that would likely block the ATF from pursuing administrative proceedings ``to revoke a gun dealer's federal firearm license if the dealer supplies guns to criminals or other prohibited buyers'' and ``to prevent the importation of non-sporting firearms used frequently in crimes.'' Later in the letter, former Directors Higgins and Davis state: We know from experience how important it is that ATF be able to enforce our nation's gun laws to prevent firearms from being obtained by terrorists, other criminals, and the gun traffickers who supply them. To protect our citizens from the scourge of gun violence Congress should be strengthening our laws and increasing ATF's resources and ability to enforce those laws. To handcuff ATF, as this bill does, will only serve to shield corrupt gun sellers, and facilitate criminals and terrorists who seek to wreak havoc with deadly weapons. To take such anti-law enforcement actions in the post-9/11 age, when we know that suspected terrorists are obtaining firearms, and may well seek them from irresponsible gun dealers, is nothing short of madness. Combined, former Directors Higgins and Davis have more than two decades of experience in leading the ATF. We should recognize their extensive knowledge of gun violence issues and follow their advice. Instead of providing a single industry with broad immunity, we should be protecting the legal rights of gun violence victims and enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies. I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the law enforcement and community organizations opposing this legislation be printed in the Record.