Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would like to discuss the issue of federally funded stem cell research. On August 9, 2001, President Bush outlined the policy of his administration regarding federally funded research using only existing stem cell lines. He indicated that he felt this would allow for Federal research dollars to be used on about 60 lines of stem cells. In actuality, over 3 years later, there are indications that Federal research has been done on only as many as 24 lines and as few as 5. Yet, the administration continues to state this policy is appropriate. As recently as Monday, President Bush stated on a campaign stop in Derry, NH, that his stem cell policy ``balanced good science with good ethics.'' I disagree. We must use modern medical technology to its fullest capability to use stem cells to develop cures for debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and ALS, commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. The Federal Government should not restrict our policy to only existing stem cells but expand the policy to include newly discovered stem cell lines as well as unused cells that would otherwise be discarded from in vitro clinics. This is the position of the majority of the American people and it is the position of former First Lady Nancy Reagan. On a personal note, a dear friend of mine, William Kooistra, of Grand Rapids, MI, was recently diagnosed with ALS. Bill Kooistra founded Project in Rehabilitation in 1968, seeing the need for the medical community to become involved in treating the problems of drug addiction. Project Rehab is now one of the largest and longest running substance abuse programs in my home State. There is hope that stem cell research can one day cure diseases such as ALS. Although that cure may come too late for my friend Bill, I hope and I know that he hopes that a cure can be found one day so that the generations to come won't have to worry that they are genetically predisposed to contract ALS. I ask unanimous consent a September 12, 2004, letter from Bill Kooistra to the Grand Rapids Press on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this conference report because in this sluggish economy, average American families need all the help they can get. Just a few weeks ago the Census Bureau released new national figures showing that for the third year in a row poverty has risen and incomes have fallen. In fact, the typical family has seen its income fall by more than $1,500. Employer-sponsored health insurance coverage has continued its decline and there are a whopping 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Extending these tax cuts that are aimed at helping families by expanding the child tax credit and the 10 percent income tax bracket in addition to marriage penalty and AMT relief is an important part of any economic plan. I would have much preferred to vote for a conference report that paid for the extension of these cuts. They could and should have been paid for. Continuing to deepen our extraordinary deficit ditch will ultimately hurt the very same lower and middle class families that this legislation aims to help. Earlier this year I supported, and the Senate passed, PAYGO, which would have required that in addition to paying for all spending, we would have to pay for all tax cuts as well. This concept is common sense for most families, who work to live within their means by balancing what goes out with what comes in. Unfortunately, PAYGO was rejected by the House Republican leadership, so we do not have to offset the cost of these or any tax cuts. Now that these cuts are going to be extended through 2010, I hope there will be a renewed support for PAYGO. But PAYGO or not, there was no good reason for those who put together this conference report not to offset these tax cuts. The estimated 10- year cost of these extensions is $146 billion. There are a number of possible offsets available. In May the Senate passed the FSC/ETI bill with $170 billion worth of them. Numerous times now the Senate has passed legislation that raises revenue by curbing tax abuses. Unfortunately, each time the House Republican leadership has blocked these provisions, so they have not yet become law. There is no good reason to let tax dodgers continue to abuse the system while our deficit skyrockets. If the drafters of this conference report could not find acceptable ways to pay for a lengthy extension, then the extension should have been shorter. It is too bad that the pay-for proposals Senator Baucus made in the conference committee were defeated. As Alan Greenspan has said, ``You should not be borrowing for your tax cuts.'' I am concerned that over the long term, many middle-class families will end up worse off from the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts this Congress has enacted since 2001. That is because paying for the debt we are racking up will eventually require either massive tax increases or program cuts, or likely both. We all know that our fiscal outlook is grim. The Federal Government is expected to borrow about one of every five dollars it spends this year. CBO projects the deficit this year will be $422 billion. Most analysts agree the budget picture will worsen considerably within the coming decade, as the huge baby- boom generation will begin relying increasingly on Social Security and Medicare, driving those programs' costs upward. In addition to raising the likelihood of cuts in important domestic programs, a bigger deficit makes it more likely we will face rising long-term interest rates. That would mean it will be more expensive to buy a house, pay for college or pay off credit card debt. As Senators Conrad and Dodd said on the floor yesterday, our enormous and growing debt means average consumers could see interest rate hikes that will dwarf any tax cut they may get. Especially when so many Americans have variable-rate mortgages, car loans and other debts, the rising interest rates that are predicted to accompany swelling deficits will have a very real and immediate impact on many American families. That's not what Americans need. I also want to express my disappointment that the conferees rejected Senator Lincoln's worthy amendments to prevent the refundable child tax credit floor of $10,000 from being indexed to $11,000. This means a full-time minimum wage earning parent will receive no benefit from the tax credit because her income of $10,300 falls short of the $11,000 floor. If the purpose of this bill is truly to help those in the lower and middle income ranges, this should have been one of the first items to be included. It would have helped 9.2 million children in 4.3 million families gain an increased portion of the credit. This conference report also plays games with the timing of one of its most important pieces. Under a glitch in current law, many men and women in our armed services are denied their earned income tax credit and child tax credit because combat pay is excluded from the definition of earned income for the purpose of calculating these tax provisions. This conference report fixes the glitch with respect to the child tax credit, but only fixes the EITC glitch for two years. So in 2006, taxes will be raised on thousands of the men and women in our military who put their lives on the line for our nation. I think it is of the utmost importance that our service members are adequately compensated for their duties, and that we offer them a quality of life that will enable them to continue to serve and to live comfortably. Service families deserve a quality of life comparable to that of their civilian counterparts. Quality of life for our service members is particularly important now when the extensive commitments of our military forces are pushing our military families to the limit. Yet as this legislation extends tax breaks for millions of American families through 2010, it takes away tax benefits during that same time for service members and their families who have the lowest levels of income. There is no reason why a reservist who would otherwise get the full EITC should be forced to lose part of it if he or she is called up and sent into a combat zone. But that is what this legislation will do. Making this provision permanent would have been a very small part of the cost of this $146 billion bill. I understand it is approximately $30 million over 10 years. Yet it was not done that way, despite the direct effect on those service members who we have sent to the most dangerous corners of the world Iraq and Afghanistan for example. These brave soldiers do not deserve to have their tax benefits taken away. But that is exactly what today's conference report does. I wish this conference report didn't create this problem, but I am hopeful that with the leadership of Senators Pryor and Lincoln, who have put lots of hard work into this issue already, we can soon fix this timing issue and end the glitch permanently. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line for our country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the most important quality I am looking for in a Director of Central Intelligence is someone who can be relied upon to provide objective intelligence assessments independent of the policy and political agenda of the White House. Too often we haven't had that. The massive intelligence failures before the Iraq war were, to a significant degree, the result of the CIA shaping intelligence to support administration policy. The CIA's errors were all in one direction, making the Iraqi threat clearer, sharper and more imminent, thereby promoting the administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped; a ``slam-dunk'' was the assessment. The CIA was saying to the administration, to the Congress, and to the American people what it thought the administration wanted to hear. The problem of intelligence being manipulated and politicized is not new. Forty years ago, Secretary of Defense McNamara used classified communications intercepts, later proved to be very dubious, to push for passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was then used by President Johnson as the legislative foundation to expand the war in Vietnam. Intelligence was manipulated by then-DCI William Casey during the Iran Contra period. The bipartisan Iran-Contra report cited evidence that Director Casey ``misrepresented or selectively used available intelligence to support the policy he was promoting.'' We need a different kind of DCI, one who is not going to be influenced by the policy choices or politics of whatever administration is in power. After reviewing Congressman Goss's record, I am not convinced that he would be that kind of DCI. For example, the Washington Post reported that in 2002, when asked about intelligence failures in Iraq, Congressman Goss said ``I don't like to see the left- wingers splattering mud on an agency that's done some very fine work.'' The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a unanimous 500-page report on the massive CIA failures leading up to the Iraq war. I would not characterize the committee as ``a bunch of left wingers.'' We need someone who is committed to independence and reform, not an ideology. During his nomination hearing, Congressman Goss was very reluctant to admit there had been intelligence failures on the part of the intelligence community during the most recent Iraq War. And, when asked questions about some of his partisan comments, Congressman Goss answered many of them by simply saying ``the record is the record.'' Whatever that means, it is not an acceptable answer from a nominee for Director of Central Intelligence. I will vote against Congressman Goss. I hope that, if confirmed, he will prove me wrong.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week, at the invitation of the Council on Foreign Relations and the family of the late Paul Warnke, I gave the second annual Paul Warnke Lecture on International Security here in Washington. I spoke to the council about the ongoing efforts here in the Congress to address the issue of the reform of the intelligence community as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and others. I told the council that to my mind, at least as important as the structural reforms of our intelligence community, and arguably even more so, is the need to protect the independence, objectivity and integrity of intelligence analyses. Too many times in our past, including most recently in the Iraq war, intelligence has been manipulated and politicized to support a specific policy. I am willing to support the creation of a more powerful National Intelligence Director with greater authority over intelligence budgets and personnel, but only if this increased power is used to help ensure the accuracy, independence, objectivity and integrity of intelligence analyses, and not used to promote policy. I don't want a National Intelligence Director to be a more powerful ``yes man'' for the administration in power. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on September 13, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to join in celebrating the 150th anniversary of Williams Charter Township. Located in the heart of Michigan, this rural township is a close-knit community that reflects much of the best America has to offer. John Gaffney, Charles Bradford, William Spafford, Charles Fitch, George W. Smock, and Lyman Brianard were the first to arrive in 1854 on the land that officially became Williams Charter Township. The area's waterways and roads soon became an essential route of transportation for travelers in the region. The fertile soil led to the establishment of many farms, which are providing harvests over a century later. The earliest settlers saw this land as an ideal place to begin their new lives, and by doing so, built a strong foundation for the generations that have followed. The sesquicentennial festivities of Williams Charter Township took place this past weekend, and its residents and their families and friends came together to commemorate the land's rich history and to celebrate the continued growth of this wonderful community. The occasion was marked with many memorable activities, including living historical re-enactments and an awards ceremony to honor some of the township's most outstanding citizens. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating the residents of Williams Charter Township on this important milestone. I am proud to represent this township and wish them many more years of success and happiness.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join all of my colleagues in paying tribute to one of the giants of the United States Senate, a son of Michigan, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg. Earlier today, the Senate Commission on Art unveiled a wonderful portrait, painted by Tennessee artist Michael Shane Neal, of Senator Vandenberg in the Reception Room just outside of this Chamber. The Senate, in 2000, selected Senator Vandenberg for this rare honor, along with Senator Robert F. Wagner of New York. They join only five others, known as the ``Famous Five'' whose portraits grace the beautiful Reception Room, Senators Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin, and Robert A. Taft of Ohio. Arthur Vandenberg was born in Grand Rapids, MI on March 22, 1884. After studying law at the University of Michigan, he worked as a reporter for the Grand Rapids Herald, later becoming the managing editor for the paper. Following the death of U.S. Senator Woodbridge Ferris in March 1928, he was appointed by Governor Fred Green to fill the vacancy, a seat that he was already campaigning for. In November of 1928, he was elected in his own right. He was reelected three times, rose to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate and served in the Senate until his death, from lung cancer, in 1951. Although he is best known for his views on foreign policy, among his many notable accomplishments was the establishment of the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933. Vandenberg entered the Senate as an isolationist, an advocate of very limited U.S. involvement in international affairs. However, after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, he recognized the Nation's greater interest and rose above partisanship to become one of the strongest proponents of a bipartisan foreign policy. On January 10, 1945, in this chamber, he delivered the ``speech heard round the world'' calling for the establishment of the United Nations. He was largely responsible for drafting the 1945 United Nations Charter, and he steered its passage through the Senate. He played a leading role in constructing the Marshall Plan, and he engineered the Senate ratification of the NATO Treaty. A couple of years ago I read David McCullough's best-selling biography of Harry Truman. The book makes clear the indispensable role of Vandenberg in forging and maintaining the bipartisan coalition in Congress that supported Truman's successful post-World War II strategy establishing America's place as a leader of the free world and setting in motion the foreign policy which ultimately decades later won the cold war. Senator Arthur Vandenberg's call to ``unite our official voice at the water's edge'' resonated for many years, uniting Republicans and Democrats in support of the Nation's foreign policy through administrations of both parties. The impact of his words were all the greater because of his own political roots as a isolationist Republican leader. Vandenberg, himself, often liked to point out, Pearl Harbor ended isolationism for any realist. Arthur Vandenberg was a forward-looking man who saw beyond partisan politics and worked for the good of the country. His service in the Senate is an example of true bipartisan leadership, which is so desperately needed today. I know that all of my colleagues in the Senate and the people of Michigan join me in celebrating the life and works of this son of Michigan, and in congratulating the family of Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would withhold making the point of order for a few minutes so I have an opportunity to speak in support.

Mr. LEVIN. I greatly appreciate my old friend from Mississippi yielding. We are in an energy crisis. I will speak about that part of the Byrd amendment particularly, which would use the money from not continuing to fill the 96-percent filled Strategic Petroleum Reserve and taking the money that would then be made available and using it for some critical homeland security needs. I congratulate the Senator from West Virginia for both identifying some very significant needs in the homeland security area, as well as paying for it in a very rational way; that is, to suspend further deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The energy crisis is obvious. We are paying a record amount per barrel for oil. The addition of these millions of barrels to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is significantly adding to the cost of oil and is weakening our economy. Last week, Alan Greenspan stated: [E]conomic activity hit a soft patch in late spring. . . . That softness in activity no doubt is related, in large measure, to this year's steep increase in energy prices. Chairman Greenspan further stated: Most macroeconomic models treat an increase in oil prices as a tax on U.S. residents that saps the purchasing power of households and raises costs for businesses. Yet in the face of this crisis, the administration is decreasing rather than increasing the supply of oil. Day after day, month after month, regardless of how much American consumers and industry need oil, regardless of how high the cost is of this oil, the administration has been taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and depositing them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And by doing that, the administration is increasing the price of oil and gasoline and decreasing our energy security. The use to which the $470 million that would be saved by using this oil in the commercial market rather than depositing it into a reserve-- which is already 96 percent filled--those uses provide a win-win situation for national security and energy security. For energy security, we would have this energy placed into the private sector, into commercial inventories, rather than into the Petroleum Reserve. For national security, the way in which the Senator from West Virginia would use these funds--for airline security, port security, mass transit and rail security, firefighter grants, State and homeland security grants--these are all very important needs and uses. Now, very quickly, supplies are tight. That is the reason crude oil prices are high. Demand is strong. Commercial inventories are low. Supplies are vulnerable. Supplies are tight because OPEC is producing barely enough oil to meet demand. Private sector inventories of crude oil are near the lows, historically, for this time of year. Of course, there is also great concern over the vulnerability of Iraqi oil supplies to terrorism--we see that again today--the problems in Russia with Yukos, the largest oil company in that country; and the turmoil in Nigeria and Venezuela, which have added a premium to prices. Over the last 2 years, private sector inventories have declined significantly. Last January, private sector inventories fell to their lowest levels since the mid-1970s. The SPR Program is a major reason for the decline in private inventories. From April 2002 through December 2003, the Department of Energy deposited about 78 million barrels of oil in SPR. During that same period, private sector inventories declined by about 61 million barrels. Thus, the total amount of oil in inventory in the United States in both private and public storage increased by only 17 million barrels over this entire period. The SPR Program is directly the reason for recent price increases to the extent of somewhere between 10 cents and 25 cents a gallon when looking at gasoline. Goldman Sachs, one of the largest and most successful crude oil traders in the world, reported, on January 16 of this year, that ``large speculative positions, builds in strategic petroleum reserves, and low inventory coverage have contributed to current price levels.'' In this report, Goldman Sachs also stated that ``past government storage builds will provide persistent support for the market,'' and that ``current plans for the injection of 130 thousand [barrels a day] of royalty-in-kind barrels into the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between now and the end of September . . . will likely provide even further support.'' Goldman Sachs estimated that the strategic reserve programs in the United States and Europe in 2003 and 2004 are adding about $4.25 to the price of each barrel of crude oil sold in the United States. Now, DOE's plans, regardless of the price of oil, are to continue to deposit oil into the Petroleum Reserve. Until late 2001, the policy of the Department of Energy was to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices were low and to buy less oil when prices were high. That policy was explained by DOE officials, in late 2001, to energy officials in other countries, and the presentation was entitled: ``The Key To A Successful Strategic Reserve Is Cost Control.'' The DOE identifies the ``Lessons Learned to Control Oil Acquisition Costs'' as follows--this was the DOE, before they changed their policy in 2002--1, ``let the markets determine your buying pattern;'' 2, ``buy in weak markets;'' 3, ``delay delivers during strong markets;'' and 4, ``use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.'' That was prior to early 2002. They have now reversed it. Instead of buying low and selling high, they are buying high and shorting supply. It makes absolutely no sense to do this. We are all paying more for the price of gasoline and heating oil and jet fuel as a result of this policy. We should stop continuing to deposit oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 96 percent filled. And when we do this in a tight supply, which is now the case, we are adding to gasoline prices alone somewhere between 10 and 25 cents per gallon. Indeed, ``buy low, sell high'' is just plain common sense. Unfortunately, in early 2002, the Department of Energy abandoned this commonsense approach. Instead, since early 2002, DOE has been buying oil for the SPR without regard to the price of oil. No matter how high the price of oil has been or will be, DOE has been and will be buying more and more oil for the SPR. Since over this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight, this cost- blind approach has increased the costs of the program to the taxpayer and put further pressure on tight oil markets, thereby helping boost oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses. It is a rip-off of the taxpayers to pay $45 a barrel for oil in today's market, when the same oil could be acquired for $10 to $15 a barrel less in a couple of years. We need oil in the private sector more than in the SPR. In the current tight market, there is a critical need to prevent minor shortages or disruptions from causing major price spikes. Increasing private inventories, not the SPR, is the best way to meet this need. Canceling the deposits into the SPR could lower gasoline prices by 10 to 15 cents a gallon. Each $1 increase in the price of oil increases gasoline prices by about 2.5 cents. Depending on which estimates of the effect of the SPR fill is correct, postponing the upcoming SPR deposits therefore could lower gasoline prices by 10 to 25 cents. Postponing SPR deliveries will signal speculators that the U.S. Government is willing to take action to put a lid on increasing prices. The administration has repeatedly stated that it will keep on filling the SPR regardless of price. The market, therefore, correctly believes DOE will not stop SPR deliveries or release SPR oil no matter how high the price of oil. This has eliminated an important potential brake on speculation that prices will keep rising. In effect, the administration's statements have taken off any lid on prices. Stopping SPR deliveries will signal this is not the case, and could take speculative steam out of the market. In 2002, DOE SPR staff urged the postponement of deliveries in tight markets. In 2002, when the administration told DOE to change its policy and buy oil for the SPR regardless of the price, the DOE career staff attempted to persuade the administration to retain the old policy of taking price into consideration. DOE staff wrote the new policy: [I]s a business model different from that followed by all private market participants, and if followed by a significant number of market participants would lead to explosive price swings. In another memo, DOE SPR staff reported the current policy ``appears irrational to the market place.'' In spring 2002, as prices were rising and inventories falling, the DOE SPR staff recommended that DOE postpone filling the SPR: This is good public policy. Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high and economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under these circumstances. The market conditions today are the same as they were in 2002 when the DOE SPR staff recommended that SPR deliveries be postponed. Many other oil industry leaders and economists believe now is not the time to fill the SPR. In May of this year, Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, the largest independent refiner in the U.S., said: They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put it into Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make any sense at all. Writing in Forbes magazine, Professor Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University, commented: The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov. 13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for inventories with the government. This May, The Houston Chronicle stated: With oil at more than $40 a barrel and the federal government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum market and ameliorate gasoline prices. A leading energy consulting firm, PFC Energy, wrote this May: The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by taking crude out of the market and injecting significant volumes into the SPR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of other comments be included in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senate has twice acted on this issue to restore some common sense to our SPR policy. The Senate passed an amendment Senator Collins and I offered, by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 43, SPR deliveries and use the receipts from the sale of the royalty oil for homeland security programs. The Senate amendment regrettably was not retained in conference. Last fall, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill that Senator Collins and I offered that would have required DOE to adopt procedures to acquire oil for the SPR in a manner that minimizes the program's cost to the taxpayers while maximizing our overall energy security. The Senate amendment was not retained in conference, and, unfortunately, DOE has chosen to ignore the Senate's direction in the amendment. The major reason given by DOE for not postponing any of the scheduled shipments into the SPR is that, according to DOE, the amount of oil that is placed into the SPR is only a small fraction of the global daily supply and demand. This comparison is not relevant in a tight market. The amount that is being put into the SPR is about as much as is produced in several of our own States--Wyoming or Oklahoma, for example. It is about three-quarters of our daily imports from Kuwait. In a tight market, this additional demand can cause a large price increase. Moreover, these daily deposits add up to a lot of oil over weeks and months. The Department of Energy's own documents explain this effect as follows: Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, and OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices. I support the filling of the SPR, but not at any price. DOE, like any well-managed business, should acquire more oil when prices are low, and less when prices are high. DOE should not be diverting crude oil from depleted private-sector inventories when prices are high and supplies are tight. Deferring further shipments to the SPR at this time will reduce energy prices, lower taxpayer costs, and help strengthen our economy. It will also make about $470 million available for vital homeland security programs. Clearly, now is not the time to be taking more oil off the market. This amendment is a win-win for consumers, taxpayers, and the Government. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment, for both parts of it, for both adding money to needed homeland security needs but also finding the source from suspending deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Exhibit 1 comments on the spr program ``Commercial petroleum inventories are low, retail product prices are high and economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under these circumstances. . . . Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, and OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices.'' John Shages, Director, Office of Finance and Policy, Strategic Petroleum Reserves, U.S. Department of Energy, Spring 2002. ``As a U.S. Senate committee pointed out Wednesday, the U.S. government was filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year as prices were rising. And by my estimate, had the U.S. government not filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or returned the 20 million barrels they'd put in back to the market, prices right now would be around $28 a barrel instead of $38 a barrel and gasoline prices might be 25 to 35 cents lower.'' Philip Verleger, NPR Morning Edition, March 7, 2003. ``We believe the administration has been making a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 million barrels since the start of May. . . . Washington should back off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists during summer vacation driving time.'' Omaha World Herald, August 14, 2003. ``They've continued filling the reserve--which is crazy, putting the oil under ground when it's needed in refineries.'' Dr. Leo Drollas, Chief Economist, Centre for Global Energy Studies, The Observer, August 24, 2003. ``If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve, you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So, I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic reserve.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, largest independent refiner in the U.S., Octane Week, September 29, 2003. ``Over the last year, the [DOE] has added its name to this rogues list of traders by continuing to acquire oil for the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In doing so, it has (1) wasted taxpayer money, (2) done its part to raise crude oil prices, (3) made oil prices more volatile, and (4) caused financial hardship for refiners and oil consumers.'' Philip K. Verleger, Jr., The Petroleum Economics Monthly, December 2003. ``U.S. taxpayers and the economy would realize greater economic potential with a more prudent management of this national asset by not further filing the SPR under the current market structure. The DOE should wait for more favorable prices before filing the reserve both today and in the future.'' Richard Anderson, CEO, Northwest Airlines, NWA WorldTraveler, January 2004. ``The government is out buying fuel, it appears, without much regard for the impact that it is having on prices.'' James May, Chief Executive, Air Transport Association, quoted in U.S. Airlines Blame Bush for Cost of Oil, Associated Press, January 2004. ``Government storage builds have lowered commercially available petroleum supplies'' and ``will provide persistent support to the markets.'' ``Changes in global government storage injections will have [a] big impact on crude oil prices.'' Goldman Sachs, Energy Commodities Weekly, January 16, 2004. ``The average price per barrel for 2003 was the highest in 20 years and to date, the price for 2004 is even higher. All the while, our government continues to depress inventory stocks by buying oil at these historic highs and then pouring it back into the ground to fill the strategic petroleum reserve.'' Larry Kellner, President and Chief Operating Officer, Continental Airlines, Continental Airlines Earnings Conference Call, January 20, 2004. ``The act of building up strategic stocks diverts crude supplies that would otherwise have entered the open market. The natural time to do this is when supplies are ample, commercial stocks are adequate and prices low. Yet the Bush Administration, contrary to this logic, is forging ahead with plans to add [more oil to] the stockpile.'' Petroleum Argus, January 26, 2004. [Bill O'Grady, Director of Futures Research at A.G. Edwards, Inc.] also notes the Bush administration has been on an oil-buying binge to stock the nation's strategic petroleum reserves. He guesses that artificial demand boost is adding as much as 15 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas.'' Las Vegas Review-Journal, February 29, 2004. [West Coast gasoline about $2/gallon at the time]. ``When the government becomes a major purchaser of oil, it only bids up the price exactly when we need relief. I know that you recently testified to Congress that the SPR fill has a negligible impact on the price of crude oil, but we politely disagree.'' Letter from American Trucking Association to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, March 9, 2004. ``Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really helped keep oil prices high.'' Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Cramer, CNBC, March 22, 2004. ``Filling the SPR, without regard to crude oil prices and the availability of supplies, drives oil prices higher and ultimately hurts consumers.'' Letter from 53 Members of the House of Representatives (39 Republicans, 14 Democrats) to President Bush, March 22, 2004. ``Despite the high prices, American officials continue to buy oil on the open market to fill their country's strategic petroleum reserves. Why buy, you might ask, when prices are high, and thereby keep them up? The Senate has asked that question as well. It passed a non-binding resolution this month calling on the Bush administration to stop SPR purchases; but Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, has refused.'' The Economist, March 27, 2004. ``[T]he Energy Department plans to buy another 202,000 barrels a day in April. It can't resist a bad bargain.'' Alan Reynolds, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute, Investor's Business Daily, April 2, 2004. ``In my opinion, we have grossly mismanaged the SPR in the last 12 months. When Venezuela went on strike and we had the war in Iraq we probably should have drawn down some of the Reserve in order to build up supplies in the Gulf Coast of the U.S. We didn't do that. When the war was over we started adding to the Reserve, so we were actually taking oil out of the Market. We took something like 40-45 million barrels that would have gone into our inventories--we put in the strategic reserves. . . . We should have stopped filling the Reserves 6 months ago.'' Sarah Emerson, Managing Director, Energy Security Analysis, Inc., Interview, New England Cable News, April 4, 2004, 8:59 p.m. ``The administration continues to have its hands tied on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly with candidate Kerry's `high ground' proposal to suspend purchases putting Bush in a `me too' position.'' Deutsche Bank, Global Energy Wire, ``Election-Year Oil: Bush Painted into a Corner,'' April 6, 2004. ``At a time when supplies are tight and prospects for improvement are grim, Bush continues to authorize the purchase of oil on the open market for the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush is buying serious quantities of oil in a high-price market, helping to keep it that way.'' Thomas Oliphant, Blatant Bush Tilt Toward Big Oil, Boston Globe, April 6, 2004. ``He pointed out that Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich. had a good idea earlier this month in proposing earlier this month cutting back the contribution level to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which Kerr said is 93 percent full. `By reducing the input, it could provide a great deal more supply to help rein in prices a bit.' '' CBS MarketWatch, Gasoline, crude prices pull back, April 23, 2004, referring to the views of and quoting Kevin Kerr, editor of Kwest Market Edge. ``The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by taking crude out of the market and injecting significant volumes into the SPR.'' Crude Or Gasoline? Who Is To Blame For High Oil Prices: OPEC Or The US? Market Fundamentals & Structural Problems, PFC Energy, May 6, 2004. ``Kilduff said the Bush administration could have stopped filling the SPR, saying `it's not the best move to start filling the SPR when commercial inventories were at 30-year lows.' '' John Kilduff, senior analyst, Fimat, in Perception vs. reality, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004. ``Oppenheimer's [Fadel] Gheit said Bush's decision to fill the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks caused a crisis of confidence around the world that led to the perception of short supply and drove up prices. `The administration has not tried hard to dispel notions and rumors and perceptions and concerns over supply disruption,' [said Gheit]. `Gasoline prices are at record levels because of mismanagement on a grand scale by the administration.' '' Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., in Perception vs. reality, Camps debate Bush influence on Big Oil, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004. ``With oil at more than $40 a barrel and the federal government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum market and ameliorate gasoline prices.'' Houston Chronicle, Keep the oil in it, but take a timeout on filling it, May 18, 2004. ``They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make any sense at all.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, Washington Post, May 18, 2004. ``The Bush administration contributed to the oil price squeeze in several ways, according to industry experts. First, it failed to address the fact that demand for gasoline in the United States was increasing sharply, thanks to ever more gas guzzlers on the road and longer commutes. The administration also continued pumping 120,000 barrels a day of crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making a tight market even tighter.'' David Ignatius, Homemade Oil Crisis, Washington Post, May 25, 2004. ``How can the administration rectify its mistakes? It could calm the market by moving away from its emergency-only stance. It could also stop buying oil to add to the strategic reserve. The government has done a good job making sure that the reserve is at its 700-million barrel capacity. But now that we are close to that goal there is no reason to keep buying oil at exorbitant prices.'' Edward L. Morse and Nawaf Obaid, The $40-a-Barrel Mistake, New York Times, May 25, 2004. ``President Bush's decision to fill the reserve after the terror attacks of September 2001 has been one of the factors driving up oil prices in recent months, along with reports that China, which recently surpassed Japan as the second- largest importer of oil, is going ahead with plans to build its own petroleum reserve.'' Simon Romero, If Oil Supplies Were Disrupted, Then . . . New York Times, May 28, 2004. ``The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov. 13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for inventories with the government.'' Steve Hanke, Oil and Politics, Forbes, August 16, 2004.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a matter of hours, the assault weapons ban will expire. That moment will mark a turning point--to the wrong direction--in our effort to reduce gun violence. Criminals, and potentially terrorists, will once again have easy access to 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. I am disappointed that, despite broad bipartisan support for the ban, the Republican congressional leadership opposes it and President Bush has done little or nothing to support this important legislation. At midnight tonight, 19 currently banned assault weapons will become legal once again, as well as firearms that can accept detachable magazines and have more than one of several specific military features, such as a folding/telescoping stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded muzzle or flash suppressor, barrel shroud or grenade launcher. Common sense tells us that there is no reason for civilians to have easy access to guns with these features. Over the past year, I have repeatedly urged the Congress to act. I believe that allowing gun manufacturers to restart production of these dangerous weapons will increase their number and availability on our streets and lead to a rise in gun crimes committed with assault weapons. Many in the law enforcement community have called the currently banned assault weapons ``the weapons of choice for criminals.'' This is what the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police has said about the expiration of the assault weapons ban: We are disappointed in the lack of political will to extend a ban that has apparently worked. In the ten years of the ban's life, there has been a 66% reduction in assault weapons traced to crime. The MACP has informed me that 14 police officers have been killed in the U.S. by assault weapons already this year. Unfortunately, that the number will likely rise as the assault weapons ban is allowed to expire. Last week, Police Chief Ervin Portis of Jackson, MI, came to Washington, DC in support of reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. Accompanying him on this trip was David Harvey, retired chief of police of Garden City, MI. Chief Harvey was chief of police on December 31, 2002, when an armed assailant set out to execute a police officer from Garden City. His intended victim was Officer Rodney Donald. Officer Donald was shot 7 times with a semi-automatic rifle that contained a magazine with a capacity of 100 rounds. Officer Donald is now permanently disabled and unable to perform duties as a police officer. The clip used in this attack is currently banned, but, like many of the assault weapons it was designed for, the clip will again become legal at midnight. As many of my colleagues know, law enforcement support for the assault weapons ban is broad. Supporters include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association. On the other side are lobbyists of the National Rifle Association and their allies in Congress and the White House. The NRA has said that the ban is ineffective and unnecessary. But this assertion is not supported by the facts. According to statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, from 1990 to 1994, assault weapons named in the ban constituted 4.82 percent of guns traced in criminal investigations. However, since the ban's enactment, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61 percent of the crime-related guns traced. It is disturbing that the President has sat back rather than standing up with our Nation's law enforcement community in support of this critical piece of gun safety legislation. The Senate majority leader was quoted in a New York Times article on September 9 as saying, ``I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire.'' I am aware of no facts to support that statement. In fact, numerous polls have found that large majorities of adults support a reauthorization of the ban. In the very same New York Times article, the House majority leader is quoted referring to the Assault weapons ban as ``a feel-good piece of legislation.'' On March 2 of this year, I joined with the majority of my colleagues in passing an amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for another 10 years. The bill to which it was attached, however, was later derailed. Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, bipartisan support in the Senate, and the pleas of Americans who have already lost loved ones to assault weapons tragedies, it appears the ban will expire at midnight tonight, as neither the President nor the Republican congressional leadership is willing to act. Unfortunately, tomorrow morning Americans will wake up less secure than they are today. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article titled ``Effort to Renew Weapons Ban Falters on Hill'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No, the amendment would only apply to new contracts signed after the date of enactment.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. The intent of the amendment is to only capture new contracts.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct, the amendment is not intended to impact that contract or any task orders issued under the US VISIT contract.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in less than one week, the 1994 assault weapons ban will expire and our Nation will once again be vulnerable to guns known to most in the law enforcement community as ``the weapons of choice for criminals.'' If the ban is allowed to expire on September 13, potential criminals, including terrorists, could have access to 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms capable of being produced. These guns have no sporting purpose and no place on our streets. In addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the current ban also includes prohibitions on semiautomatic weapons that incorporate a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features include folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. Common sense should tell us that there is no reason for civilians to have easy access to guns with these features. Los Angeles Chief of Police Bill Bratton has said the following about these weapons: ``Since the Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, we have seen a 66% decline in the frequency of assault weapon use in crime. Violent criminals love these weapons because they give them far more firepower than conventional weapons that greatly increases their capacity to kill. We cannot allow these weapons to get back into their hands.'' It is important to listen to Chief Bratton and other law enforcement officials who support an extension of the assault weapons ban. The ban is important for the safety of all Americans but is especially important for the safety of our police officers. In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of the amendment, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to keep the law alive. Time is running short. We should support our law enforcement officers and reauthorize this common sense ban on assault weapons. Congress needs to act immediately to reauthorize the ban. I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the organizations supporting this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I, along with my esteemed colleague Senator Stabenow, congratulate Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, LSSM, on its 70th anniversary. We are delighted to recognize LSSM's impressive history of compassion and good will in Michigan. We would also like to recognize and honor LSSM's staff and volunteers for their tireless efforts and outstanding commitment to helping those in need. LSSM's legacy of service dates back to the early years of the 20th century when the Lutheran churches in Detroit formed the Missionsbund, a society dedicated to providing humanitarian assistance in Detroit. The Lutheran Inner Mission League of Greater Detroit grew out of this effort and was soon thereafter called the Lutheran Charities and formally incorporated in 1934. Under the leadership of its first executive director, the Rev. Carl E. Schaffnit, its efforts included child welfare work, a settlement house, and services to the elderly. By 1959 Lutheran Charities gained a new name, the Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, and has since expanded its mission to serve others in the name of faith with 80 programs in 44 cities throughout Michigan's lower peninsula. Over 20,000 people from diverse backgrounds feel the warm embrace of LSSM on an annual basis by utilizing the many services it has to offer. LSSM's excellence can be seen by the success of its programs in the realm of foster care, adoption, childcare, subsidized housing, nursing homes, community centers, and services to the homeless, refugees, and persons with developmental disabilities. Its efforts to preserve and enhance human dignity across Michigan have created hope for so many. We share this organization's vision for a community that upholds human dignity, decries complacency and affirms equality and justice. We are sure that our Senate colleagues will join us in offering our heartfelt congratulations for this long and outstanding record of achievement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I take this opportunity to congratulate all of the athletes who competed in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. The Olympic Games celebrate years of training, struggle and perseverance in overcoming obstacles and striving to become the best. It was wonderful to see so many athletes from across the globe come together in peaceful competition. Greece did a tremendous job of hosting the Games. The scenery was breathtaking, and the venues were spectacular. These Games were especially notable because of the return of the Olympics to its birthplace in Greece. The historic legacy of Greece was particularly noteworthy for the marathon competitors who began their journey in the ancient city of Marathon, the original location of the event, and for the shot-put competitors who competed in the original Olympic stadium in Olympia. Over a 16-day span, the Olympic spirit was embodied by the athletic prowess and grace displayed by the best athletes our country has to offer, including many from Michigan. Michigan continued our long tradition of contributing world-class athletes to both the Summer and Winter Olympic Games with athletes competing in 13 different sports in this year's Games. It was inspiring to witness their total effort, and in many cases, the realization of their dreams. There are legions of young athletes who watched these Games and will continue to dream and strive to one day represent their country with the same pride, grace and determination that was on display at these Games. I am particularly proud of the 28 individuals from Michigan who competed for the United States in the 2004 Athens Olympics. All of the athletes on Team USA achieved amazing feats to qualify for these Games. The Michigan Olympians included Martin Boonzaayer in judo; Tim Broe in track and field; Swin Cash in basketball; Tara Cunningham in weightlifting; Andre Dirrell in boxing; Kate Johnson in rowing; Kara Lynn Joyce in swimming; Klete Keller in swimming; Dan Ketchum in swimming; Rachel Komisarz in swimming; Kate MacKenzie in rowing; Tom Malchow in swimming; Kate Markgraf in soccer; Jamie Nieto in track and field; Carly Piper in swimming; Andy Potts in the triathalon; Jasna Reed in table tennis; Ruth Riley in basketball; Dathan Ritzenhein in track and field; Artour Samsonov in rowing; Jeff Smoke in canoe/kayak; Daryl Szarenski in shooting; Sheila Taormina in the triathalon; Lindsay Tarpley in soccer; Paul Terek in track and field; Peter Vanderkaay in swimming; Steve Warner in rowing; and Lauryn Williams in track and field. This outstanding group of athletes brought honor to our State and Nation and accounted for a total of 15 medals for the United States: eight gold, five silver, and two bronze. In addition, competing at these Games were nine other athletes with ties to Michigan: Michael Phelps in swimming, who will be attending the University of Michigan, U of M; Alan Webb in track and field, who attended the U of M; and Venus Williams in tennis, who lived in Michigan, competed for Team USA. In addition, six athletes with Michigan ties competed for other countries: Courtney Babcock for Canada in track and field; Carlos Delfino for Argentina in basketball; Chris Demetral for Greece in baseball; Andrew Hurd for Canada in swimming; Kevin Sullivan for Canada in track and field; and Nick Willis for New Zealand in track and field. Every two years we watch the Summer and Winter Games to catch a glimpse of these extraordinary athletes' struggles and successes. An Olympian's life is about sacrifice, about showing up to grueling practices day after day, about working hard to become the best in the world. It was riveting to watch these Games unfold. In Athens, as is the case in every Olympiad, there were many amazing moments that will resonate in our minds for years to come. Let me take a moment to highlight a few of them. Representing the WNBA Champion Detroit Shock on the gold medal winning women's basketball team were Ruth Riley and Swin Cash. The women won the gold medal by going unbeaten, increasing their Olympic winning streak to an incredible 25 games. Another notable achievement was accomplished by Andre Dirrell of Flint, who won a bronze medal in the middleweight division in boxing. Dirrell showed the heart of a champion as one of only two U.S. boxers to win a medal in these Games. First-time Olympian Lauryn Williams of Detroit won the silver medal in the 100-meter sprint. In an extremely close race, Williams edged out a Jamaican runner to finish with the silver and a personal best time. In addition, Kate Johnson, from the U of M, won a silver medal as part of the women's eight rowing team. The team set a world record in one of their preliminary heats en route to winning their medal. On the soccer field, the U.S. women's team took the gold medal with an extremely thrilling 2 to 1 overtime victory over Brazil. Michigan residents Kate Markgraf and Lindsay Tarpley helped the team achieve this victory over the tough Brazilian team. Tarpley, a midfielder from Kalamazoo, tallied one assist against Greece and scored the first goal in the gold medal match against Brazil. Markgraf of Bloomfield Hills, starting in all six games as a defender, helped her team remain undefeated. This was her second time representing the United States in the Olympics. Another heart pounder came in the men's 4x200 meter freestyle swimming relay. The U.S. men's team, which included Peter Vanderkaay from Royal Oak, Klete Keller from Ann Arbor, U of M alumnus Dan Ketchum and future Wolverine Michael Phelps, held off a strong Australian team to win the gold and set an American record. In addition to this golden performance, Keller won the bronze medal in the 400-meter freestyle, and Michael Phelps won an additional five gold and two bronze medals to establish himself as one of the stars of this or any Olympiad. For the women's swim team, Kara Lynn Joyce from Ann Arbor won a silver medal as a part of the 4x100 meter medley relay team. Additionally, Joyce, along with teammate Rachel Komisarz from Warren, won a silver medal in the 4x100 meter freestyle relay. Another victory was secured by the women's 4x200 meter freestyle relay team, which included Komisarz and Carly Piper from Grosse Pointe Woods who swam in the finals. In the finals, the U.S. women broke the world record. The athletes with Michigan ties who represented other countries had many notable achievements as well. Second baseman and Troy resident Chris Demetral, a Greek American, assisted the Greek baseball team to a 7th overall finish. In men's basketball, Carlos Delfino, who was drafted by the World Champion Detroit Pistons in 2003 and will be joining the team this year, competed for the Argentinean Olympic team. Our athletes were supported by a great number of coaches and staff who made their success in the Games possible. The coaches with ties to Michigan include Bob Bowman of the U of M in swimming; Larry Brown of the Detroit Pistons in basketball; Todd Dagenais of Michigan State University in volleyball; Steven Fraser from the U of M in wrestling; Kevin Jackson from Jackson in wrestling; Al Mitchell of Northern Michigan University in boxing, and Jon Urbanchek of the U of M in swimming. In addition to the coaching staff, three U of M alumni were involved in the administration of the Games. Jeffrey Benz is the current general counsel and Abigail Tompkins is a member of the United States Olympic Committee, USOC. Thomas Miller is the current United States Ambassador to Greece. All of these individuals worked tirelessly to assist the athletes in their pursuit of greatness at these Games. I know I speak for all Michiganians in expressing appreciation and congratulations to all of the Michigan athletes, coaches, and administrators who took part in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games. The Games last a few short weeks, but the memories will be ingrained in the minds of all who saw them and shared vicariously in the efforts of these great athletes. For their commitment, drive and competitive spirit, I congratulate all the athletes of the 2004 Olympic Games, but it is with particular pride that I salute the athletes and coaches from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Voices of Detroit Initiative, VODI. VODI provides an opportunity for people living in Detroit and Wayne County, who do not have insurance, to improve their health. VODI has emerged as an extraordinary leader in Michigan's efforts to provide better health care access for the uninsured. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, RWJF, recognized VODI for its efforts and awarded them a grant as part of RWJF's Urgent Matters initiative to increase understanding of the health care safety net and improve the efficiency of emergency care. Over a quarter million residents are without health insurance coverage in Detroit and Wayne County. This lack of insurance has severe implications on patient health and the availability of resources to care for the uninsured, most of whom are low-income working people. As a result, more than 50 percent of emergency room visits are for problems that could have been treated outside of the emergency room. VODI is a coalition between Michigan's leading systems: Henry Ford Health System, Detroit Medical Center, St. John Health, Oakwood Healthcare and Federally Qualified Health Centers. The Federally Qualified Health Centers are made up of Advantage Health Centers, Community Health and Social Services, CHASS, and Detroit Community Health Connection, and the Detroit and Wayne County Health Departments. Together these leaders work to connect the uninsured with a provider or clinic that can provide direct care on an ongoing basis, a ``medical home.'' Health care services at these sites are provided to VODI's members on a sliding-fee scale. VODI also engages in multiple activities to promote better health care access for the uninsured, including a pharmacy assistance and medication review program, a tobacco use reduction program, and care management services to assist clients with managing their chronic health conditions. On behalf of the people of Michigan, I am pleased to express appreciation to the Voices of Detroit Initiative for their untiring leadership in coordinating and leveraging scarce resources on behalf of the underserved and uninsured and to honor the organization, its staff, and its partners as they continue to work to fulfill their lifesaving mission.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week is the last week that Congress is in session before the August recess and there is only one additional week to act before the Assault Weapons Ban expires on September 13th. This past Monday, one of our former colleagues, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post. In his article, Senator Metzenbaum highlights the broad support this law has among Americans, as well as the inconsistencies between the stated positions and the actions of President Bush on the reauthorization of this critical law. As my colleagues know, in addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the existing ban makes it illegal to ``manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic'' firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of several specific military features, such as folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds or grenade launchers. These weapons are dangerous and they should not be on America's streets. In April of this year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence joined hundreds of local elected officials and senior law enforcement officials to urge President Bush to push for reauthorization of this critical piece of gun safety legislation. Since then, the support for this important law has grown exponentially. In addition to former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton, nearly every major law enforcement organization in the country, gun safety organizations, a bipartisan majority of the Senate, and countless local leaders have added their names to the list of supporters. I commend them for their efforts in support of this commonsense gun safety legislation. In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of the amendment, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to help keep the law alive. I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed from Senator Metzenbaum be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. I also ask that the list of organizations in support of this critical piece of gun safety legislation be printed in the Record following Senator Metzenbaum's op- ed.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from New York is decidedly right. We have expressed that willingness. There have been a number of suggestions which have been made for compromise. One of the suggestions which we have made was that there be a bipartisan commission appointed in Michigan to make recommendations to the White House to fill these vacancies. The recommendations do not have to include these two women. Bipartisan commissions have been appointed in other States without this kind of a deadlock existing but simply to promote bipartisanship. That suggestion has been rejected by the White House. There was another suggestion that was made by Senator Leahy when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for that period of time the Democrats were in the majority. That suggestion was actually supported by the then-Republican Governor of Michigan. There was a recommendation by then-Chairman Leahy as to how to resolve this issue. That was also rejected by the White House. We continue to be open to suggestions to fill these vacancies, but we are deeply of the belief that the tactic that was used to deny hearings to qualified women--one of whom is a Michigan court of appeals judge and the other one of whom is a celebrated appellate lawyer in front of the Sixth Circuit--should not succeed. Maybe it succeeds in some places where there are not Senators in those States who will object because the new President of their party picks somebody they like and may have recommended. But in a situation like this, when you have the advise-and-consent clause in the Constitution, and where there has been this kind of a tactic used, which the White House acknowledges was unfair--Judge Gonzalez has acknowledged that that tactic of denying hearings was unfair--simply to then fill the vacancies that were unfairly created is not something we can simply roll over and accept.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from New York. Mr. President, I discussed with the Senator from New York the situation and the background relative to these Michigan vacancies. Two women, Helene White, a court of appeals judge, and Kathleen McCree Lewis, well known in Michigan as a very effective advocate-- particularly appellate advocacy--were nominated by President Clinton to be on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge White was denied a hearing for over 4 years, which is the longest time anyone has ever awaited a hearing in the Senate. She was never given a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. Kathleen McCree Lewis waited over a year and a half without a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. For a time, there was a refusal to return blue slips on these two nominees by my then-colleague Spence Abraham. But even after Senator Abraham returned the blue slips in the spring of 2000, the women were not given hearings. They never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor. That distortion of the judicial nominating process was unfair to the two nominees. It deprived the previous administration of consideration by the Senate of those two nominees. Senator Stabenow and I have objected to proceeding to the current nominees until a just resolution is achieved. Moving forward without resolving the impasse in a bipartisan manner could indeed deepen partisan differences and make future efforts to resolve this matter more difficult. I have said repeatedly that the number of Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit provides an unusual opportunity for bipartisan compromise. Judge Helene White was nominated to a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit on January 7, 1997. I returned my blue slip on Judge White's nomination. The junior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, did not. More than 10 months later, on October 22, 1997, Senator Leahy, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, delivered what would be the first of at least 16 statements on the Senate floor, made over a 4-year period regarding Sixth Circuit nominations in Michigan. He called for the committee to act on Judge White's nomination. His appeal, like others that were to follow, was unsuccessful. For instance, in October of 1998, more than a year and a half after Judge White was nominated, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, where he warned the following: In each step of the process, judicial nominees are being delayed and stalled. His plea was ignored. The 105th Congress ended without a hearing for Judge White. On January 26, 1999, the beginning of the next Congress, President Clinton again submitted Judge White's nomination. That day, I sent one of many notes to both Senator Abraham and to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In that letter, I said the 105th Congress had ended without a Judiciary Committee hearing for Judge White and suggested that fundamental fairness dictated there be an early hearing in the 106th Congress. Again, no hearing. On March 1, 1999, Judge Cornelia Kennedy took senior status, opening a second Michigan vacancy on the Sixth Circuit. The next day, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, repeated his previous statement that nominations were being stalled, and raised Judge White's nomination as an example. On September 16, 1999, President Clinton decided to nominate Kathleen McCree Lewis to that second vacancy. Soon thereafter, within 2 weeks, I spoke with Senator Abraham about both nominations, the Lewis and the White nominations. It had been more than 2\1/2\ years since Judge White was first nominated. Twice in the next month and a half, Senator Leahy urged the committee to act, calling the treatment of judicial nominees unconscionable. On November 18, 1999, I again wrote to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch, urging hearings in January 2000 for the two nominees. I then noted that Judge White had been waiting for nearly 3 years for a hearing, and I stated that confirmation of the two women was essential for fundamental fairness. My appeals were for naught, and 1999 ended without hearings in the Judiciary Committee. In February of 2000, Senator Leahy spoke again on the floor about vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. A few weeks later, in February of 2000, I made a personal plea to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to hold hearings on the Michigan nominees. Again, I was unsuccessful and no hearing was scheduled. On March 20, the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit sent a letter to Chairman Hatch expressing concerns about an alleged 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. The judge's concern would turn out to be well-founded. On April 13, 2000, Senator Abraham returned his blue slips for both Judge White and Ms. Lewis without indicating his approval or disapproval. The day Senator Abraham returned his blue slips, I spoke to Chairman Hatch and sent him a letter reminding him that blue slips had now been returned, that objections had not been raised, expressed my concern about the unconscionable length of time the nominations had been pending, and I urged that they be placed on the agenda of the next Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Two Michigan nominees were not placed on the agenda. I tried again early May 2000. I sent another note to Chairman Hatch, but those nominations were not placed on the committee's hearing agenda then or ever. Over the next several months, Senator Leahy went to the floor 10 more times to urge action on the Michigan nominees. More than once, I also raised the issue on the Senate floor. In the fall of 2000, in a final attempt to move the nominations of two Michigan nominees, I met with the majority leader, Senator Lott, and Senator Daschle to discuss the situation. I sent a letter to the majority leader urging him, stating, ``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 the majority leader nor the letter resulted in the Judiciary Committee holding hearings on these nominations, and the 106th Congress ended without hearings for either woman. Judge White's nomination was pending for more than 4 years, the longest period of time of any circuit court nominee waiting for a hearing in the history of the Senate. And Ms. Lewis's nomination was pending for over a year and a half. There has been a great debate over the issue of blue slips. I am not sure this is the place for a lengthy debate on that issue, but I will say there has not been a consistent policy, apparently, relative to blue slips, although it would seem as though the inconsistency has worked one way. In 1997, when asked by a reporter about a Texas nominee opposed by the Republican Senators from Texas, Chairman Hatch said the policy is that if a Senator returns a negative blue slip, that person is going to be dead. In October 7, 1999, Chairman Hatch said, with respect to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White: I might add, had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge (Ronnie) White in committee, John White would never have come to the floor under our rules. I have to say, that would be true whether they are Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way the Judiciary Committee has operated. . . . Apparently, it is not operating that way anymore because both Michigan Senators have objected to this nominee based on the reasons which I have set forth: that we cannot accept a tactic which keeps vacancies open, refusing hearings to the nominees of one President to keep vacancies open so they can then be filled by another President. That tactic should be stopped. It is not going to be stopped if these nominations are just simply approved without a compromise being worked out which would preserve a bipartisan spirit and the constitutional spirit about the appointment of Federal judges. It is my understanding that not a single judicial nominee for district or circuit courts--not one--got a Judiciary Committee hearing during the Clinton administration if there was opposition from one home State Senator, let alone two. Now both home State Senators oppose proceeding with these judicial nominees absent a bipartisan approach. Enough about blue slips. Senator Abraham then did return blue slips in April of 2000. He had marked them neither ``support'' nor ``oppose'', but they were returned without a statement of opposition. And what happened? What happened is, even though those blue slips were returned by Senator Abraham, there still were no hearings given to the Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit. There was also an Ohio nominee named Kent Markus who was nominated to the Sixth Circuit. In his case, both home State Senators indicated their approval of his nomination, but nonetheless, this Clinton nominee was not granted a Judiciary Committee hearing, and his troubling account of that experience shed some additional light on the Michigan situation. He testified before the Judiciary Committee last May, and said the following. This is the Ohio Clinton nominee to the Sixth Circuit: 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: One, there will be no more confirmations to the Sixth Circuit during the Clinton administration, and two, 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. Then Marcus went on. This is his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee: On one occasion, Senator DeWine told me ``This is bigger than you and it's bigger than me.'' Senator Kohl, who 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. We are not alone in the view that what occurred with respect to these Sixth Circuit nominees was fundamentally unfair. Even Judge Gonzales, the current White House counsel, has acknowledged it was wrong for the Republican-led Senate to delay action on judicial nominees for partisan reasons, at one point even calling the treatment of some nominees ``inexcusable,'' to use his word. The tactic used against the two Michigan nominees should not be allowed to succeed, but as determined as we are that it not succeed, we are equally determined that there be a bipartisan solution, both to resolve a current impasse, but also for the sake of this process. There is such an opportunity to have a bipartisan solution because there are four Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. In order to achieve a fair resolution, Senator Stabenow and I have made a number of proposals, and we have accepted a number of proposals. We proposed a bipartisan commission to recommend nominees to the President. Similar commissions have been used in other States. The commission would not be limited to any particular people. The two nominees of President Clinton may not be recommended by a bipartisan commission. Of greater importance, the existence of recommendations of a commission are not binding on the President. The White House, in response to this suggestion--again, even though it was used in other States--has said that the constitutional power to appoint judges rests with the President, and of course it does. So there is no way anyone would propose or should propose that a bipartisan commission be able to make recommendations which would be binding upon the President of the United States, nor is the recommendation binding upon the Senate of the United States. It is simply a recommendation. This has occurred in other States under these and similar circumstances, and there is no reason why it should not be used here. We also, again, were given a suggestion by the then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has tried his very best to figure out a solution to this deadlock. Senator Leahy made a suggestion which was acceptable to both Senator Stabenow and me. It was acceptable even to the then-Republican Governor of the State of Michigan, Governor Engler, but it was rejected by the White House. We have an unusual opportunity to obtain a bipartisan solution. It is an opportunity which has been afforded to us by the large number of vacancies in Michigan on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding that bipartisan path would be of great benefit, not just as a solution to this problem but to set a positive tone for the resolution of other judicial disputes as well. In addition to the points which I have made, we made the additional point at the Judiciary Committee relative to the qualifications of Judge Saad. We indicated then and we went into some detail then that it is our belief that his judicial temperament falls below the standard expected of nominees to the second highest court in this country. The Judiciary Committee considered a number of issues relating to that subject, judicial temperament or shortfall thereof, of this nominee in a closed session of the Judiciary Committee. I will not go into detail further, except to say we have made that point. We feel very keenly about that issue. The vote in the Judiciary Committee was 10 to 9 to report out this nomination. It was a vote along party lines. The temperament issue, however, was raised, and properly so, in the Judiciary Committee, as well as this basic underlying issue which I have spent some time outlining this afternoon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York for submitting the resolution about which he has just spoken.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed to see that the U.S.- Morocco Free-Trade Agreement contains patent protection language similar to that contained in the U.S.-Australia Free-Trade Agreement. Although I will not oppose this agreement on this one basis, I will oppose the use of this language as a precedent for any future free- trade agreement.