Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his comments relative to judicial appointments. He is exactly right in terms of the number of judges that this Senate has confirmed with the support of this side of the aisle. He is exactly right when it comes to the willingness of Senator Stabenow and myself to compromise the deadlock that exists with this administration over the Michigan judges. We have been willing to do that from the beginning of this administration. We continue to be willing to attempt some kind of a compromise relative to these vacancies. What we are unwilling to do is to allow a tactic, which was used relative to these two women who were nominated by President Clinton which denied them hearings for over 4 years and over 1\1/2\ years respectively, to succeed, as the good Senator from New York said, to either create these vacancies or to leave these vacancies opened for the next President to fill. That is not the way things should work. It is not the way the Constitution contemplated it. We are going to do our best to continue to press for a bipartisan solution in a number of ways but in the meantime to not simply say, OK, go ahead, fill vacancies which should not exist but only exist because of the denial of hearings for two well-qualified women who were appointed by President Clinton. I thank the Senator from New York for his comments, for his perception, for his willingness and determination--more than willingness--to look at the full meaning of the Constitution so that it is not just the President who makes appointments in a situation such as this and assumes that the vacancies, which were created by denial of hearings for nominees of the previous administration, will be rubberstamped by this body.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Do the Write Thing Challenge, sponsored by the National Campaign to Stop Violence, is a national writing contest in which students express their concerns about subjects such as domestic violence, easy access to guns, and gang activity. Do the Write Thing currently operates in 14 cities, including Detroit, MI. Over the past 9 years, more than 285,000 students from middle schools from around the country have participated in this contest. During this past school year, over 85,000 middle school students participated in youth violence discussions and roundtables sponsored by the Do the Write Thing Challenge. Some 28,000 students chose to submit contributions to their local Do the Write Thing Challenge committee. Over 2,500 school finalists were honored at local recognition ceremonies and had their writings published and distributed locally. Next week, two national finalists from each participating jurisdiction will be honored at a national recognition ceremony in Washington, DC. Also during next week's National Recognition Week, the finalists will present their views on youth violence to such national leaders as the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Members of the House and Senate. In addition, their writings will be published and placed in the Library of Congress. The works, ranging from poems to essays to stories, all describe the impact of violence in the lives of children. I am pleased that the National Campaign to Stop Violence will honor two students from Michigan, Michael Williams and Starlyn Robinson, for their poems on youth violence. I commend these two young people for their hard work and I know my colleagues join me in celebrating the efforts of middle school students from around the country. I ask unanimous consent that Michael and Starlyn's poems be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, article 17.9.4 of the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement implementing legislation allowing patent holders to prevent the import of their patented products is redundant and should not have been included in the agreement. Australian law already bans the export of pharmaceuticals if such drugs are purchased under its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, and PBS drugs account for over 90 percent of all drugs sold in Australia. This language does not establish a precedent for other free trade agreements. According to the Senate Finance Committee, it is appropriate to raise objections if this language is included in a free trade agreement negotiated with a country that does not forbid the export of low cost pharmaceuticals. Therefore, I will support this agreement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Constitution is a document that should only be amended with great caution. This is one of those moments when we would be wise to submit the strong feelings on this issue to careful deliberation. Unfortunately, proponents have chosen to do otherwise. The language we are debating was introduced less than 4 months ago. It is not clear what text we would even be voting on. The proposed language changes almost daily, like the weather. The amendment was not voted on by the committee of jurisdiction and we do not have the benefit of a committee report laying out the pros and cons of the amendment. For purposes of comparison, the Congressional Research Service looked at constitutional amendments originating in the Senate over the last 40 years. Since 1963, 691 constitutional amendments have originated in the Senate. Including cloture votes, only 19 of these measures were voted on in the Senate. According to CRS, only four times in those 40 years has a constitutional amendment that originated in the Senate been debated in the Senate without first being reported by the Judiciary Committee. And of those four times, only the amendment providing Congress the power to limit campaign expenditures, versions of which were considered by the full Senate in the 100th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, came to the floor without earlier amendments on the same subject having been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that amendment was not adopted. The amendment we are currently debating has received less consideration than any constitutional amendment originating in and voted on in the Senate in at least the last 40 years, with the possible exception of one which was defeated. In 1979, a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of the President and Vice President was brought directly to the Senate floor. Senator Thurmond, then ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, protested the tactic, saying ``The Judiciary Committee is the proper machinery for referral of this resolution. It is set up under our rules for considering a measure of this kind. It should be utilized and should not be sidestepped as it attempted to do here with this procedure.'' He was joined by the then ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Senator Hatch, who said ``To bypass the committee is, I think, to denigrate the committee process, especially when an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the most important document in the history of the Nation, is involved.'' Senators Thurmond and Hatch's efforts to encourage thoughtful consideration were successful and the amendment was referred with unanimous consent to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration. Our consideration of the pending amendment would also benefit from such a process. One purpose of the pending amendment is stated to be to protect one State from imposing its view of marriage on other States. But this debate is taking place before the courts have even had the chance to determine the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which almost all of us voted for, which says that ``No State . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding or any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'' Defense of Marriage Act defines ``marriage'' as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'' Even though the Defense of Marriage Act has yet to be tested in court, some proponents of the pending amendment have claimed the act will be ruled unconstitutional and that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will force States opposed to same-sex marriages to recognize same-sex marriages established in other States. However, many experts disagree. In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, Professor R. Lea Brilmayer, a Yale Law School expert on the full faith and credit clause, cited the Supreme Court in Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 1939: ``We think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment . . .'' Professor Brilmayer testified that less formal legal instruments, such as marriage licenses, have been ``entitled to less recognition even than legislation'' and that ``marriages entered into in one state have never been constitutionally entitled to automatic recognition in other states.'' Amending the Constitution should be a measure of last resort. The Defense of Marriage Act should be tested in court before a constitutional amendment is considered, the purpose of which is to achieve the purpose of the statute. In addition, the language of S.J. Res. 40 itself contains a host of problems. The amendment reads, ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'' Not surprisingly, given the lack of deliberation, there appear to be differences of opinion on what the amendment provides. Some have argued that the amendment's language relative to ``legal incidents'' of marriage does not ban civil unions or the extension of other rights to same-sex couples. But here is what Professor Cass Sunstein, a leading constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, has to say: What is meant by ``the legal incidents thereof''? Does this provision ban civil unions? Does it forbid States from allowing people in same-sex relationships to have the (spousal) right to visit their partners in hospitals? Does it bear on rules governing insurance? At first glance, the term ``legal incidents thereof'' appears to forbid States from making cautious steps in the direction of permitting civil unions. And does the word ``require'' include ``permit''? Or consider the recent Allard amendment, which says that neither the federal Constitution nor any state Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or ``the legal incidents thereof'' must be ``conferred'' on same-sex marriages. The most serious difficulty is that the words ``legal incidents thereof'' raise the same questions about civil unions and spousal benefits and privileges. For all these reasons, I will vote no.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Michigan in supporting resolution honoring Gerald R. Ford, the 38th President of the United States on the occasion of his 91st birthday. President Ford, the favorite son of the city of Grand Rapids, and the only President from Michigan, played a memorable role in our Nation's history in one of its darkest hours. The first Vice-President appointed under the 25th amendment to the Constitution, he became president when Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It was Gerald Ford's calm and steady leadership that began the process of healing our Nation's wounds after one of the most serious domestic crises in our history. President Clinton awarded him the Medal of Freedom, in 1999, in recognition of that leadership. Gerald Ford served thirteen terms in the House of Representatives. From 1965 through 1973, he was the minority leader in that body. It is particularly instructive in this time of partisan division in the Congress to reflect on his example as one who fought many battles on behalf of his party, and his constituency, but who did so without acrimony or ill-will. He build life-long relationships and friendships across the party aisle--even with his opposite numbers in the House Democratic leadership. We would be well served at this time in this body to remember his example. I extend my congratulations and best wishes to Gerry Ford, his wonderful wife, Betty, and his family. I am certain that the people of Michigan, and our colleagues in the Senate join Senator Stabenow and me in paying tribute to President Ford on his 91st birthday.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and work of a truly remarkable American and long-time Detroit resident, Hang Chao. Born in 1939 in the city of Pha Leong, XiengKhoua Province, in Laos, he was among the thousands of Hmong young men who gave their support to the United States during the Vietnam war. By joining with American soldiers to fight against Lao and Viet communists in the jungles of Laos, these young men put their lives at risk. In the face of considerable personal risk, the heroism of these brave men saved countless American soldiers. Hang Chao continued his strong stand defending and promoting democracy throughout his life and leaves a legacy of selfless dedication to helping and enriching the lives of others. His family, colleagues, and many friends mourned his death in October 2003, and he will be remembered as a man of honor and goodwill, whose heroism and deep faith inspired all who knew him. During the Vietnam war, Hang Chao trained in the Lao Royal Army and rose through its ranks. He was appointed lieutenant colonel by General Oun Latikun and Prime Minister Souvanhna of Laos. During his service, he earned the respect of his peers and leaders because of his courage, principled leadership, and devotion to democracy. The Lao government in exile honored him in 1982 by appointing him Deputy Minister of Interior. Ten years later, Hang Chao was appointed Advisor to the King of Laos, LangXang Houng Kau, government in exile. Hang Chao immigrated to the United States with his family after the war. He valued learning and education and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in political science while making a new life for himself and his family in Michigan. While he spoke Hmong and English fluently, he was also fluent in Tao, Lao, and French. He was committed to the Hmong community, and his active leadership helped pave the way for many Hmong refugees to assimilate into American life. Hang Chao was also a devout Christian and was elected elder in ten Hmong churches. His faith, family, and commitment to public service guided his vision of community growth and the promotion of cultural understanding of the Hmong heritage. Hang Chao was a loving husband to his wife of 50 years, Mia Lee Vang, and a nurturing father to his five children, Tou Yi, Tou Chue, Mai, Youa, and Pang Nhia. I would like to express my admiration for the life story and the accomplishments of Hang Chao. We can all benefit from his example of courage, perseverance and leadership. He has left an indelible mark on his community, and his family can be proud of his legacy. I know my Senate colleagues join me in paying tribute to Hang Chao.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous accomplishment of Michigan State University and its debate team. On April 6, 2004, Michigan State University won the National Debate Tournament hosted by Catholic University in Washington, DC. This date was a milestone in that it marked the first National Championship awarded to the Michigan State Spartans in the field of debate. In addition, the Spartans demonstrated the high quality of Michigan's public institutions of education, as it was only the third occasion in 20 years that a public university has won the title. During the tournament, the Spartans defeated many of the Nations' most respected academic universities. These include Harvard, Dartmouth, Emory, Northwestern, and finally, long-time rival UC Berkeley in the championship match. It is also worth noting that Michigan State was represented by two separate teams in the tournaments final four. However, as they were matched against one another, the higher ranked team advanced while the other willingly conceded. In the final round, the Spartan team consisting of Dave Strauss and Greta Stahl, defeated the team from Berkeley that was ranked No. 1 overall entering the tournament. Michigan State was declared the winner 4-1 by the 5 judges scoring the debate. The Sigurd S. Larmon Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Debate Tournament Champion and will remain in East Lansing until the 2005 tournament. Michigan State University's debate team, led by head coach Will Repko, is now the reigning national champion. This accomplishment was made possible through the hard work and dedication of all those who support Michigan State's debate program. The university's first national championship signals the beginning of what will surely become a great tradition. It is with great pleasure that I offer my sincerest congratulations and appreciation to Michigan State University as it celebrates its victory at the National Debate Tournament. Those who participated should be very proud of the manner in which they represented their school. I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in honoring MSU, the team, and its staff as they continue with their pursuit of academic excellence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan list of supporters for extending the Federal Assault Weapons Ban continues to grow longer and even more influential. This week, former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton sent a joint letter to President Bush urging him to spur Congress to act to extend this important gun safety law. The former Presidents make an already impressive group of supporters even more remarkable. The reauthorization of this law already has the support of America's law enforcement community, gun safety organizations, millions of moms and countless others. The message of the former Presidents is simple: the assault weapons ban works. They wrote to President Bush: ``Each of us, along with President Reagan, worked hard in support of this vital law, and it would be a grave mistake if it were allowed to sunset.'' 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. The National Rifle Association has said that the ban is ineffective and unnecessary. The NRA asserts that guns labeled as assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes. 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. 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 hope the letter from Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton will prompt President Bush to act to promote the passage of the extension of the Assault Weapons Ban. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from former Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton be printed in the Record. June 14, 2004. President George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear President Bush: We are pleased that you support reauthorization of the federal Assault Weapons Act, which is scheduled to expire in September. Each of us, along with President Reagan, worked hard in support of this vital law, and it would be a grave mistake if it were allowed to sunset. There continues to be strong support for this law among our nation's police officers who risk their lives every day to protect the public. That is because they remember the days, prior to the enactment of the law in 1994, when military- style, semiautomatic firearms had become the weapons of choice for gangs, drug traffickers, and paramilitary extremist groups. The firearm death rate soared as criminals used these weapons, outfitted with 20, 50 and even hundred round ammunition clips, to kill, maim, and terrorize. We cannot go back to those days. At a time when terrorism continues to be a serious threat, it is even more imperative that we renew the Assault Weapons Act and limit access to military-style weapons and high- capacity ammunition clips. But with upcoming recesses, there are not many legislative days left for Congress to renew the law. We urge you to make reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Act a top priority for your Administration and spur Congress to action. If we can be of assistance to you in this regard, we are ready to do so. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford. Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, tomorrow's report of the Senate Intelligence Committee will be intensely and extensively critical of the CIA for its intelligence failures and mischaracteri- zations regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. That report is an accurate and a hard-hitting and well-deserved critique of the CIA. It is, of course, but half of the picture. Earlier today I released an example of the other half. A few days ago the CIA finally answered, in an unclassified form, the question I have been asking them about whether the Intelligence Community believes that a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence official and Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, occurred in Prague in the months before al-Qaida's attack in America on 9/11. The answer of the CIA illustrates the point that tomorrow's Intelligence Committee report is extremely useful regarding the CIA's failure, but it does not address another central issue--the administration's exaggerations of the intelligence that the CIA provided to them. That is left for the second phase of the Intelligence Committee's investigation. This newly released, unclassified statement by the CIA demonstrates that it was the administration, not the CIA, that exaggerated the connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The new CIA answer states that the CIA finds no credible information that the April 2001 meeting occurred and, in fact, that it is unlikely that it did occur. A bit of history. On December 9, 2001, Tim Russert asked the Vice President whether Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack. The Vice President replied: It's been pretty well confirmed that he [Mohamed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Vice President Cheney also said in his interview with CNBC on June 17 of this year that the report from the Czechs was evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. In his interview with the Rocky Mountain News on January 9 of this year, the Vice President also said that the alleged meeting between the hijacker, Atta, and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague a few months before 9/11 ``possibly tied the two together to 9/11.'' President Bush frequently exaggerated the overall relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. For instance, on the deck of the aircraft carrier, President Bush stated: The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida. Now, relative to the alleged Prague meeting itself, Vice President Cheney continues the misleading rhetoric by stating that we cannot prove one way or another that the so-called Prague meeting occurred. Vice President Cheney said on June 17 on CNBC: We have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11. The one thing we had is the Iraq-- the Czech intelligence service report saying that Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official at the embassy on April 9, 2001. That's never been proven; it's never been refuted. But what the Vice President continues to leave out is the critical second half of the CIA's now unclassified assessment that ``although we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical that such a meeting occurred.'' The Vice President also omits the key CIA statement: In the absence of any credible information that the April 2001 meeting occurred, we assess that Atta would have been unlikely to undertake the substantial risk of contacting any Iraqi official as late April 2001, with the plot already well along toward execution. In summary, the CIA says there is no credible evidence that the meeting occurred, and it is unlikely that it did occur. The American public was led to believe before the Iraq war that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attack on America, and that the actions of al-Qaida and Iraq were ``part of the same threat,'' as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has put it. Well, it was not the CIA that led the public to believe that; it was the leadership of this administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four documents, which I referred to in the body of my remarks, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, yesterday, I joined Senator Clinton and 18 other Members of the Senate in introducing S. 2600, legislation calling for the revision of the group portrait monument, located in the Capitol Rotunda, honoring leaders of the Women's Suffrage movement to include the likeness of Sojourner Truth. Our bill has the support of Senators on both sides of the isle and is an appropriate step towards honoring Truth's contributions to eliminating women's suffrage. In its current form, the monument features the sculpted busts of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. As many know, one corner of the stone is unsculpted and was clearly intended to include a fourth hero of the suffrage movement. I believe that woman should be Sojourner Truth and that is why I have cosponsored this important piece of legislation. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a groundbreaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Sojourner Truth was born Isabella Baumfree in 1797 in Ulster County, NY, and served as a slave under several different masters. She bore four children who survived infancy, and all except one daughter were sold into slavery. Baumfree became a freed slave in 1828 when New York State outlawed slavery. She remained in New York and instituted successful legal proceedings to secure the return of her son, Peter, who had been illegally sold to a slave-owner from Alabama. In 1843, Baumfree changed her name to Sojourner Truth and dedicated her life to traveling and lecturing. She began her migration west in 1850, where she shared the stage with other abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass. In October 1856, Truth came to Battle Creek, MI, with Quaker leader Henry Willis to speak at a Friends of Human Progress meeting. She eventually bought a house and settled in the area. Her antislavery, women's rights, and temperance arguments brought Battle Creek both regional and national recognition. Sojourner Truth died at her home in Battle Creek, MI, on November 26, 1883, having lived a truly extraordinary life. Truth also lived in Washington, DC for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South, and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. Sojourner Truth was a political and social activist who personally conversed with President Abraham Lincoln on behalf of freed, unemployed slaves, and campaigned for Ulysses S. Grant in the Presidential election in 1868. Sojourner was a woman of great passion and determination who was spiritually motivated to preach and teach in ways that have had a profound and lasting imprint on American history. I am proud and the people of my State are proud to claim this legendary leader. In September of 1999, Michigan honored Sojourner Truth with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI. The contributions of Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, are indelibly etched in the chronicle of not only the history of this Nation, but are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. In 1851, Sojourner delivered her famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech at the Women's Convention in Akron, OH. She spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. Her words on that day in Ohio are a testament to Sojourner Truth's convictions and are a part of the great legacy she left for us all. In closing, I must take a moment to pay special tribute to Dr. C. Delores Tucker, who has been the chief crusader in the movement to add Sojourner Truth to the Women's Suffrage group portrait monument. Dr. Tucker, President of the Bethune-Dubois Institute and Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, is a woman of strong conviction and is unyielding in her pursuits for justice and fairness. Because of her diligence and commitment, constructive efforts are now on the way to ensuring that Sojourner Truth will be shown in her rightful place, in our Capitol Rotunda. I must also commend the National Council of Women's Organizations for their active support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 2600, including cosponsors, be inserted in the Record at the end of my remarks, following Truth's ``Ain't I a Woman'' speech.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, earlier this week the U.S. Army held an awards ceremony honoring the Top Ten Greatest Inventions of 2003. Looking at each of these inventions, one is reminded of the technological innovation, ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that our Nation is able to harness in the global war on terror. These are among our Nation's greatest assets. One of the Army's Top Ten Greatest Inventions of 2003 was the product of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center, TARDEC, located in Warren, MI. This device, the Squad Automatic Weapon Pintle Mount Assembly for the Humvee is a gun mount that has been directly attributed with protecting and saving the lives of many of our soldiers who are currently deployed in Iraq. This gun mount is a novel device that would not have been possible were it not for another technological advance that has been developed by the U.S. Army TARDEC's National Automotive Center; Focus: HOPE, a Detroit- based non-profit; Alion; the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Project; and several other organizations. The Mobile Parts Hospital, as its name implies, is a field deployable unit that can rapidly manufacture parts as they are needed. Utilizing the latest manufacturing and computer technologies, the Mobile Parts Hospital team has developed a mobile unit that can readily travel to any destination. By using parts specifications or by reverse engineering an actual part, this hospital can make parts as they are needed. For the past several years, I have worked to fund research and development into this program in the hopes that this would one day be able to assist our men and women in uniform. It was hoped that these science and technology efforts would enable the Mobile Parts Hospital to reduce the need for carrying numerous parts into battle. Earlier this year, that vision became reality as the Mobile Parts Hospital and its crew team were deployed to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. The success of the Mobile Parts Hospital far exceeded anyone's expectations. Not only did it create one of the Army's Ten Greatest Inventions for 2003, but it was immediately able to begin assisting units in need of parts. Earlier this year, my brother, Congressman Sander Levin, was able to speak directly with the mobile parts team in Kuwait from Washington, DC. During that conversation, he learned that as soon as the team arrived in Kuwait, they had soldiers lined up outside the Mobile Part Hospital seeking the parts and tools they needed to perform their duties. By all reports, the soldiers came away impressed with the Mobile Part Hospital and grateful for its presence in Kuwait. Many soldiers and contractors have written to the Mobile Parts Hospital team thanking them for their work and for the hospital itself. One soldier wrote saying that: Currently, I am stationed in Iraq and I was in need of some gun mounts. I made a stop by Camp Doha to pick up some supplies and drive them back up into Iraq. However, my unit is short some gun mounts. I stopped by Kevin Green's shop and asked him to help me out. He was very helpful. In fact, he produced 4 SAW [Squad Automatic Weapon] mounts and adaptors for our unit overnight. I was able to mount all of my weapons, which is very helpful when we are engaged with the enemy. I wanted to let you know that the mounts he is making are what we need and he is very helpful in what he is doing. Thank you. Another soldier wrote saying that: you have an excellent representative to your project here in Kuwait and your products are excellent quality, and in excellent working order, much better than what we are able to pull out of a retro yard, and I wish we would have had this service a year ago when we got here. You all have done a great service to the Army, and particularly, my guncrew . . . and for that, I thank you!! Others wrote that due to the work of the Mobile Parts Hospital they were able to get their CH-47 helicopters ``fully mission capable for this task. We appreciate everything these guys have done for us. They have been more than cooperative and willing to help. They have been very professional, in person, and at their jobs.'' The Mobile Parts Hospital has been used to make new parts for many purposes and one contractor noted that: A colleague saw new tools and asked if the Mobile Parts Hospital ``could manufacture similar tools. Not only did they agree to, but they also agreed to slightly modify their current design to meet . . . requests for modification of the tools. I cannot say enough how appreciative I am of their help, timeliness, and professional demeanor. They are currently working under a heavy load due to the Army's decision to attempt to send only armored Humvee's to Iraq. They have been asked to make a VARIETY of parts for all manner of devices. As for my shop, we are currently inspecting and servicing .50 caliber machine guns (plus others) that are being sent to or with the warfighters in Iraq. Being able to save time, labor, and damage (incurred using the hammer and punch method), we are able to send the weapons out in a much more timely fashion. I want to thank you for having the foresight to send this team of dedicated workers and I want to thank the men at the `parts doctor' shop.'' Michigan has a long and proud tradition of serving as the ``Arsenal of Democracy.'' The Mobile Parts Hospital is just one of the latest examples of the ingenuity and innovation that has enabled our nation to succeed in past conflicts and guarantees our success in the future. Developed in conjunction with Focus: HOPE, a non-profit organization committed to taking ``intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty and injustice,'' and the National Automotive Center, the Mobile Parts Hospital has been a tremendous success. Both organizations are to be commended for their vision and their dedication to developing a practical tool for assisting our soldiers in combat, and making a lasting contribution to our national security. For 35 years, Focus: HOPE has been helping people develop the skills they need to succeed professionally. Many of the candidates at Focus: HOPE, who are earning their Associate's or Bachelor's degrees, played a key role in developing the Mobile Parts Hospital. Focus: HOPE and the entire Mobile Parts Hospital team are to be commended for their efforts in making this project a success. In particular, I would like to honor the 9 team members who were at Camp Arifjan working with the Mobile Parts Hospital and supporting our troops. What follows is the list of their names: Todd A. Richman, Joe Shenosky, Kevin Ksiazek, Tim Ponzi, Robert Huffman, Greg Murnock, Kevin Green, Matt Middleton, and Greg Outland.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as of today there are 20 legislative days left before the assault weapons ban expires. And as we get closer and closer to September 13, there are reports that gun manufacturers across the country are gearing up to flood the market with previously banned assault weapons. These weapons, according to the law enforcement community, were the weapons of choice for criminals before the ban and they have no place on our streets. The assault weapons ban is straightforward, commonsense public safety legislation that needs to be extended. In addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the 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 response to Congress' inaction, some State legislatures have begun taking action of their own. In Massachusetts, State legislators voted Wednesday to bar the sale of the same 19 specific weapons mentioned in the Federal ban. According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Massachusetts is now one of six States with its own ban. Seven other States are considering enacting their own bans. The National Rifle Association has said that the ban is ineffective and unnecessary. The association asserts that guns labeled as assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes, and that many people use them for hunting and target shooting. 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. Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of a bipartisan amendment that would have extended the ban, 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 am hopeful that the Congress will act in the 20 days it has remaining.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today we have before us S. 2559, the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Appropriation bill. Included in this bill is important funding for a variety of tactical wheeled vehicle programs including the Future Tactical Truck System, FTTS. FTTS is an important program supported by the Army's National Automotive Center that will develop technologies that can increase the range, durability and survivability of our military tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. These advances will ensure that as the Army transforms itself it will have a technologically advanced tactical wheeled vehicle fleet that can best meet our Nation's security needs. I would ask my good friend, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, if he is aware of this important program?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Alaska, and agree with his characterization. I believe that this program is making important technical advances that will greatly benefit the Army. I am particularly appreciative of the committee's recommendation to increase the investment in the Army's Heavy Tactical Vehicles program, in order to support the transition of these types of technologies into Army systems, consistent with the Army's Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy. However, I am concerned that the bill we are considering this program by $5 million. Such a cut would undermine this program and hinder efforts to further develop revoluntary technologies while defining the future scope of this program.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman for this support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as always, the Senate is very much in the debt of our chairman, John Warner, an extraordinary human being and leader. This could not have happened without his leadership. My staff, Dick Debobes, and all of our minority staff deserve extraordinary credit for getting this done. It would have taken twice as long but for our staff. I don't know--16 legislative days. It would have been double that number of days but for our staff, Judy Ansley and her staff. We thank them. Our staff worked together on a bipartisan basis. The Nation and our men and women in the Armed Forces owe them a huge debt. It is our staff--they will never know the names of our staff, probably, but they will be safer, more secure, better trained, better equipped, and have better benefits because of the work of our staff and the members of our committee who worked on a bipartisan basis under the leadership of John Warner. Again, I take my hat off to our chairman. He has really done a wonderful job on this bill. It took a little longer than expected, but again we worked through a huge number of amendments, perhaps a record number of amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we would not be at this point in our deliberations were it not for the extraordinary work and cooperation on a bipartisan basis of all of our committee members and all of our committee staff. Once again, our Committee and the Senate have put the interests of our country first and we all can be very proud of that. I take just a moment to acknowledge and thank the minority staff members of the Committee on Armed Services for their extraordinary work on S. 2400, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. You don't get to final passage of this massive and important bill without having staff who are willing to give hours and hours of hard work and make many personal sacrifices. The committee and the Senate are so fortunate to have men and women of their expertise and dedication so ably assisting us on this bill. Rick DeBobes leads our minority staff of seventeen. Though small in numbers, they all make huge contributions to the work of the committee each and every day. Mr. President, as a tribute to their professionalism and with my thanks, I recognize Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Rick DeBodes, Brie Eisen, Evelyn Farkas, Richard Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, Jeremy Hekhuis, Bridget Higgins, Maren Leed, Gary Leeling, Peter Levine, Mike McCord, Bill Monahan, and Arun Seraphin.

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, just one word, now that we have adopted the Landrieu amendment. Chairman Warner and I used to have the privilege of having Senator Landrieu on the Armed Services Committee. We saw firsthand what a tigress she is and was relative to military matters. She is no longer on our committee, and we do miss her, indeed. But she brings and displays that fervor here on the floor frequently. We thank her for her tenacity. Talk about tenacity, she has a full supply of it. We commend and congratulate her.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd. The Byrd amendment allows for increases. That is the most important single point to make. There has been a suggestion that somehow or other if the Byrd amendment is adopted, that would reflect some kind of a decrease in support for what we are doing in Colombia. The Byrd amendment provides for an increase from the current level both on the military side and on the civilian side. The current military level is 400. The Byrd amendment allows for an increase to 500. On the civilian side, the current level in law is 400. The Byrd amendment provides for an increase to 500. So both on the military and the civilian personnel, the cap is raised by the Byrd amendment--not as far as the bill before us raises it. The committee raised it by more than that. But the question is by how much will we raise the cap, not whether we are going to raise the cap. The Byrd amendment is a more modest increase. It is a more gradual increase. It is appropriate in terms of the circumstances in the world today. We have our troops spread all over. There are great needs, including in Colombia. I happen to agree with my good friend from Minnesota that we have successes in Colombia. I have been there, too. I have witnessed some of these successes. I support our efforts in Colombia. But given the kind of commitments that we have around the world, given the kind of demands on our troops around the world, it seems to me that a modest increase is called for at this time. Again, we are not talking about reductions, we are talking about increases. The House of Representatives did not allow for an increase on the civilian side at all. They would retain the current cap of 400. The Byrd amendment would allow for that to go up to 500. An increase, yes; an endorsement of what is going on in terms of the efforts in Colombia, yes, because if we raise the cap, that does reflect an endorsement of those activities. But given the requirements for our troops around the world, the demands upon us, this kind of a modest increase is appropriate. Finally, it is unlikely that they will be able to use this many additional forces in any event. According to the State Department, the dates for increases in personnel are not just going to depend on our approval but also on program developments, personnel availability, and circumstances that exist on the ground. The Byrd amendment represents a very proper, cautious, modest increase in flexibility for our Defense Department and State Department. It is appropriate that there be an increase but not as large as is currently in the bill. I support the Byrd amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I commend the Senators who have been involved in again bringing this issue to the forefront, fighting the hard fight that was necessary for this to be accomplished. As far as I know, there are no other Senators at this point who wish to talk about this modified amendment. As far as we are concerned, it can be adopted.

Mr. LEVIN. I am also happy to engage in this colloquy with the Senators form New York.