Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is now confirmation from the administration's own leading weapons inspector that the intelligence community produced greatly flawed assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It is my opinion that flawed intelligence and the administration's exaggerations concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction resulted from an effort to make the threat appear more imminent and the case for military action against Iraq appear more urgent than they were. However, regardless of whether one thought the threat was imminent or not to proceed as unilaterally as we did, our intelligence was so far off the mark and the descriptions of that intelligence by the administration were even further off the mark that for the sake of the future security of this Nation, there needs to be an independent assessment not just of the intelligence but also the characterization by the administration of that intelligence. Today, I want to raise a related issue: how the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, misled the American people before the war about the status of our sharing of U.S. intelligence information with the United Nations inspectors. Director Tenet, after 12 months of indefensible stonewalling, recently relented and declassified the material that I requested, which makes clear that his public testimony before the Congress on the extent to which the United States shared intelligence with the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs was false. Prior to the war, the CIA identified 550 sites in Iraq as possibly having weapons of mass destruction or prohibited WMD materials or equipment. They were called ``suspect sites.'' Madam President, 150 of those sites were so-called ``top suspect'' sites where the CIA believed it would be more likely to find such items. The 150 top suspect sites were, in turn, divided into three categories: High priority, medium priority, and low priority. At two public hearings shortly before the war on February 11 and February 12, 2003, I pressed Director Tenet on the issue of how many suspect WMD sites were shared with the United Nations. On February 12, Director Tenet said the following: When the inspections began, we drew up a list of suspect sites which we believe may have a continuing association with Iraq's WMD programs. The list is dynamic. It changes according to available intelligence or other information that we receive. Of this set number of suspect sites, we identified a specific number as being highest interest, highest value, or moderate value because of recent activities suggesting ongoing WMD association or other intelligence information that we received. And here is his bottom line: As I said yesterday, we have briefed all of these high value and moderate value sites to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Mr. Tenet did not say ``some;'' he did not say ``most;'' he said ``all.'' We have briefed ``all'' of these high value and moderate value sites to the U.N. I told Director Tenet at the time in two public hearings that he was wrong and that classified numbers told a different story. On March 6, 2003, Director Tenet again stated in writing that: We have now provided detailed information on all of the high value and moderate value sites to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made the same representation in a letter to me on March 6, 2003, in which she said: United Nations inspectors have been briefed on every high or medium priority weapons of mass destruction, missile, and UAV-related site the U.S. intelligence community has identified. On January 20, 2004, the CIA, after a year of resistance, finally declassified the number of ``high and medium priority 'top suspect' WMD sites'' where the CIA shared information with the U.N. inspectors prior to the war in Iraq. In doing so, they finally acknowledged that 21 of the 105 high and medium priority top suspect sites on the CIA list were not shared with the United Nations before the war. So the record is now clear that Director Tenet twice gave false information on this matter to the public and to the Congress shortly before the war. The January 20, 2004, letter from the CIA states their position. The position of the CIA is that it provided the United Nations ``with the intelligence that we judged would be fruitful in their search.'' History will, and a thorough investigation would, determine the accuracy of that statement. But the public can now judge the accuracy of Director Tenet's public statements before the war that all high and medium priority top suspect sites were shared with the United Nations. All such sites were not shared and Mr. Tenet's repeated statements were false. Last February, Director Tenet could have answered honestly and said: We have not given the U.N. inspectors all the high and medium priority top suspect sites and this is why, Senator. Instead, he chose a different path, one of misstating the facts. I can only speculate as to Director Tenet's motive. If he had answered honestly and said that there were 21 high and medium priority top suspect sites that we had not yet shared with the United Nations, it would have put an obstacle in the path of the administration's move to end U.N. inspections and proceed to war. It would have been more difficult for the administration to proceed to war without first having shared with the U.N. our intelligence on all high and medium priority top suspect WMD sites and it would have reinforced widely held public and international sentiment that we should allow the U.N. to complete their inspections before going to war. In other words, honest answers by Director Tenet might have undermined the false sense of urgency for proceeding to war and could have contributed to delay, neither of which fit the administration's policy goals. For the last year, I have attempted to have declassified the number of high and medium priority top suspect sites that the U.S. did not share with the United Nations. The CIA stonewalled doing that for no reason that I can think of except that the facts are embarrassing to them. Surely, that is no reason to withhold information from the American people and to give inaccurate information repeatedly to Congress in public testimony. We rely on our intelligence agencies to give us the facts, not to give us the spin on the facts. The accuracy and objectivity of intelligence should never be tainted or slanted to support a particular policy. What is badly needed and what is lacking so far is candor about how we were so far off in the assessments of Iraq's possession of WMD. The lack of candor is one of the many reasons an independent commission should be appointed by Congress, not just by the President, to look at not just how the intelligence came to be so flawed but how that flawed intelligence came to be further exaggerated by the administration in order to support its decision to initiate military action. One small part of this picture is this recent letter from the CIA that finally makes clear the truth. The CIA did not share all of the top suspect WMD sites in Iraq that Director Tenet said twice publicly before the war that it had shared with U.N. inspectors. It is more evidence of the shaping of intelligence to fit the administration's policy objectives. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the CIA that I have referred to on this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Michigan in making this request. Michigan has tremendous transit needs. There are bus systems operating in every one of Michigan's 83 counties, from the urban Wayne County to rural counties in the Upper Peninsula. Despite covering all counties, service in many areas is minimal, creating a real hardship for working families who cannot afford to own a car. This shortfall exists despite the significant contribution by Michigan taxpayers. Michigan ranks sixth, behind five States with rail, in direct support for its public transit systems. Under TEA-21, Michigan ranked last in Federal transit funding among the Great Lakes States, and only received 43 cents back on every transit dollar it contributed to the highway trust fund. To help close this equity gap, I would also urge the chairman and ranking member to work with us in conference to provide these critical transit funds for Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Michigan is a long time donor State that for 50 years or so has sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than are returned back in transportation infrastructure spending. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004, SAFETEA, addresses this inequity by returning more money to donor States which for years have seen a portion of their highway trust fund contributions shifted to ``donee'' States. These ``donee'' States have benefitted from antiquated Federal highway formulas which give them more Federal highway funding than they paid into the highway trust fund. I have been fighting to correct the inequity faced by donor States like Michigan for decades. We have made some progress, but we won't be satisfied until we get the full return on our gas tax dollars after the costs of administering the program are allocated. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting somewhere around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 ISTEA bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 TEA-21 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State. SAFETEA moves us in the right direction toward correcting the inequity in the distribution of highway funding. I cosponsored an amendment that would have, if adopted, provided additional funding to donor states to bring them more quickly to equity. While the inequity should be corrected immediately rather than gradually over the life of the 6-year bill, it is an important step forward that donor States will all achieve a 95 cent return by the sixth year of this bill, a level that is much better than in prior bills. Under this legislation, Michigan will get more than $2.1 billion additional dollars over 6 years to pay for badly needed transportation infrastructure improvements. In all, under the formula portion of this bill, Michigan will get over $7.4 billion over 6 years which represents more than a 40 percent increase over TEA-21, plus additional funds from other sections of the bill. Our Nation has significant infrastructure improvement needs. For instance, according to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, congestion at border crossings can lead to delays of over 80 minutes. The lost productivity from this congestion has a negative impact on the Nation's economy. It also causes environmental problems in the border regions. We need to get trucks and people across the borders more quickly and with greater safety. I am pleased the bill managers have accepted my proposal to distribute funding for the bill's enhanced and expanded Border Planning, Operations, and Technology Program based on documented usage and trade flows at individual border crossings. Under my proposal, border infrastructure funding would be distributed using criteria that is based on the cargo weight, trade value and the number of commercial and passenger vehicles crossing the particular border. This means our Nation's busiest border crossings will get the Federal funding needed to improve this important economic infrastructure. Distributing the funds by this formula gives border projects more stability and predictability and is good public policy. It will also enhance U.S. economic activity and growth by facilitating the more efficient flow of goods, services and people at U.S. border crossings. Michigan, home to our Nation's top two commercial vehicle crossings on the northern border, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, would receive approximately $204.5 million from this account over 6 years to improve its border infrastructure. SAFETEA also makes an important change to the ethanol tax subsidy that will benefit my State of Michigan. At issue is the fact that the current ethanol subsidy comes at the expense of the highway trust fund and those States such as Michigan and Ohio that consume ethanol. Under current law, ethanol consuming States end up, under the formula, getting less back in federal highway funds. The Michigan Department of Transportation estimates that Michigan's annual revenue loss is $37 million a year in Federal aid because of the way the taxes on ethanol are credited. To fix this, this bill shifts the cost of the ethanol tax subsidy from the highway trust fund to the general fund. Once ethanol taxes are credited at the same rate as gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon compared to the current 13.2 cents a gallon on ethanol, for the purposes of calculating inputs into the highway trust fund, the highway trust fund will grow. So, too, will the size of Michigan's and other ethanol consuming States' contributions credited to the trust fund. The bottom line is with the ethanol fix, Michigan will receive more Federal highway dollars over the life of the 6-year bill. This legislation provides $56 billion for mass transit over 6 years, a significant increase over the prior reauthorization bill. Under the transit title, Michigan would get $656 million over 6 years, an increase of $230 million or 53 percent over TEA-21. This moves us in the right direction on mass transit. There are few Federal investments that will have such a large and immediate impact on job creation and economic growth than investments in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The efficient functioning of our economy depends on a reliable multimodal interstate system that is made up of highway, bus, rail, shipping and air transportation. We need to maintain and improve these systems and we need to address the costs and frustration of increased traffic congestion. This bill goes a long way to improve the operation of our transportation system and to keep us competitive in a global marketplace. The Federal infrastructure investment of $318 billion contained in this bill, while increasing the efficiency of our transportation system, will also spur the creation of thousands of jobs in every State across this Nation. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more than 47,500 jobs. With Michigan standing to gain over $7.4 billion dollars over the 6-year bill, an increase of more than $2.1 billion over the last 6 years, this bill would mean almost 100,000 new jobs in Michigan and the retention of almost 250,000 jobs. These are good paying jobs and jobs that Michigan needs for economic recovery and to replace some of the jobs we have lost in manufacturing. These are jobs that we need in Michigan and throughout our country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago a 17-year-old student was shot and killed at Ballou High School in Washington, DC. This shooting was the second in a 4-month period at the school. Earlier this week, in Albany, NY, another school shooting took place, and while only minor injuries resulted, the incident is another example of the impact of gun violence on students. School violence, or even the threat of school violence, instills fear in our students, and limits their ability to learn. It also threatens and intimidates teachers and makes instruction more difficult. Violence in our schools puts the learning environment in jeopardy. That is one reason why I am troubled by President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget. The President's budget proposes a total elimination of funding for the COPS in Schools Program. As my colleagues know, the COPS in Schools program is designed to help law enforcement agencies hire school resource officers to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. COPS in Schools provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence. Since 1994, in my home State of Michigan, police departments have received more than $210 million, hired more than 3,300 officers, and the COPS in Schools program has added 143 school resource officers, but with the President's cuts to the COPS program, additional Federal assistance would not be on the way. The President's $900 million in cuts to COPS funding would require local police departments around the country to stretch even further the limited number of dollars they have to protect our schools and communities. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to reinstate COPS funding so that we might ensure a safer environment for our children to learn.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, more than 1200 high school students from across the Nation will come to our Nation's capital this summer to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the history and philosophy of our Nation's most important documents: the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These ambitious students will be participating in the annual national competition of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' This laudable effort, which is federally funded, is the most extensive educational program in the country designed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At a time when a study by the National Association of Educational Progress shows that three-quarters of America's students are not proficient in either American history or civics, the importance of this program is unquestionable. ``We the People . . .'' helps our students not only appreciate our constitutional democracy, but it allows them to ``participate'' in it. Students start with an instructional program where they learn about our Government's primary institutions while they discover the relevance of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to their daily lives. Their lessons then simulate real-life when the students participate in a ``Congressional hearing'' where they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. By using the principles and knowledge they've learned in the classroom to role play, these students have the opportunity to delve into and appreciate both historical and contemporary issues facing our Nation. This program is not just reserved for high school students. ``We the People . . .'' recognizes that civic education should not wait until the students are almost able to vote. Teachers are encouraged to engage their students in simulated hearings at the elementary and middle school levels. In fact, more than 24 million students and 75,000 educators have participated in the ``We the People'' program since its inception in 1987. Throughout the years, several of my staff members have served as judges in the State competition. This year, I am proud to inform the Senate that East Grand Rapids High School will represent Michigan in this prestigious event. These students demonstrated their exceptional command of issues relating to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the state competition held in Lansing. The ``We the People . . .'' program continues to be one of the best efforts to counteract the feelings of political apathy and cynicism amongst our Nation's youth. I wish the students at East Grand Rapids and all the students across the Nation who will be competing in this year's competition the best of luck. I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing the contributions the ``We the People . . .'' program has provided to students across the country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, united with the Million Mom March and the Nation's leading State-based gun violence prevention groups, published the annual gun safety report cards for every State in America. The report cards are the culmination of a comprehensive analysis of each State's gun safety laws. The report cards rate each State on seven types of laws that protect children from gun violence. Extra credit and demerits are also assigned for other State gun laws. The Brady Campaign includes in its analysis such questions as: is it illegal for a child to possess a gun without supervision? Is it illegal to sell a gun to a child? Are gun owners held responsible for leaving loaded guns easily accessible to children? Are guns required to have child safety locks, loaded-chamber indicators and other childproof designs? Do cities and counties have authority to enact local gun laws? Are background checks required at gun shows? Is it legal to carry concealed handguns in public? The report awarded 10 States with Sensible Safety Stars for protecting children from gun violence. Nine other States were sent to the ``Time-Out Chair'' for weakening State gun laws. Unfortunately, 31 States received grades of D or F in this year's report cards. Not surprisingly, according to the report, States receiving Ds and Fs tend to have child and teen firearm death rates that are higher than the national average. For example, the average firearms death rate of youth in the 8 States that received an F grade was 33 percent higher than the average firearms death rate for the 10 States that received an A or a B. I applaud the efforts of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to keep the pressure on State and local legislators to enact sensible gun safety legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to review this report.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, people in Israel and around the world are joining in solidarity to commemorate January 27, 2004, as a ``National Day to Combat Anti-Semitism.'' At a time when many Jewish communities are facing a rising tide of anti-Semitism, it is important that all people of goodwill work together to educate and fight anti- Semitism. This insidious form of hatred has lingered in this world for so long that it has been dubbed ``the longest hatred.'' Today marks the 64th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. While six decades have passed since the genocidal regime of Adolf Hitler fell, the urgency of combating anti-Semitism has never ceased. In the past year, numerous anti-Semitic acts have occurred across the world. In many European countries, including several countries that are amongst our closest allies, the frequency of anti-Semitic attacks are increasing. Jewish cemeteries, schools, synagogues, and individuals have been the center of an increasing number of violent incidents. These targets have essentially remained the same over the millenia. Such attacks seek to intimidate and threaten individuals and desecrate institutions. We face an increasing array of groups who would perpetrate these acts. In November 2003, people across the world were horrified when suicide bombers targeted two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey. At least 25 people were killed and almost 300 people, both Jewish and Muslim, were wounded. One of the synagogues was Neve Shalom, the center of Turkey's Jewish community. This crowded congregation was celebrating a young boy's Bar Mitzvah at the time of the bombing. This attack was, without question, a specific and politically charged choice, given Turkey's close ties with Israel, the United States and NATO as well as its commitment to democracy. Another widely reported anti-Semitic act came a month earlier when former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Muhammed stated that, ``The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.'' That a leader would make allusions to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, one of the foremost claims of anti-Semitic hatred, is particularly appalling. It is unconscionable to think that a longtime leader of a sovereign nation would fan the flames of hatred and recrimination against people of the Jewish faith. It is more disconcerting that 57 leaders of the countries in the Islamic conference stood and applauded his speech. Mahatir's rhetoric was both ignorant and dangerous. Even while these two events splashed the front pages of newspapers worldwide, numerous other incidents that hardly received notice caused irreversible damage all the same. During an exhibit held in Australia last month called ``Courage to Care,'' two extremist groups sprayed a museum with anti-Semitic and racist slogans and covered it with swastikas. This was an exhibit that commemorated Australian survivors of the Holocaust. The criminals also left papers at the scene that portrayed a skull and crossbones and said, ``Death to Israel.'' In an attack in a suburb of Paris that coincided with the synagogue bombings in Turkey, a Jewish school was set on fire. Just a month earlier in Paris, a rabbi was verbally and physically attacked on his way to synagogue. In October, tombstones in a Jewish cemetery east of Berlin, Germany, were defaced by vandals who painted swastikas and anti-Semitic statements such as ``you got what you deserved,'' and ``Heil Hitler.'' The United States has not been free from such attacks, either. Earlier this year, a Holocaust Museum in Terre Haute, IN, was destroyed by arson, with only the words ``Remember Timmy McVeigh,'' left behind. In April 2002, I joined with 99 of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush that requested that he and his administration ``make every effort possible to raise, at the highest level, our concerns about anti-Semitic acts in Europe and anti-Semitic portrayals in the Arab media.'' I was heartened by German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer's statement at a conference on anti-Semitism last fall that, we are firmly committed to countering every kind of anti-Semitism, every kind of racism and xenophobia.'' In addition, French Prime Minister Chirac announced that ``attacking a Jew in France is an attack on all of France.'' Such remarks fully acknowledge the threat posed by anti- Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not merely the enemy of Jews. It is the enemy of tolerance, freedom and openness; the very core values of all democracies. Attacks on one religion, race or ethnicity threaten all of us. We have learned that when hatred is allowed to fester and grow, it can spread with a frightening degree of rapidity and virulence. It is imperative that the global community work to address not only the continuing prevalence of anti-Semitism, but also hatred against all religious and ethnic minorities. I hope all my colleagues will join with me in commemorating Israel's ``National Day To Combat Anti-Semitism,'' and in rededicating their commitment to fight hatred wherever it may be found.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week, Americans for Gun Safety, AGS, published a report entitled ``Selling Crime: High Crime Gun Stores Fuel Criminals.'' This report identifies gun stores around the country that sell the most guns used in crimes. Federal law requires gun stores to be licensed to sell firearms by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF. However, according to Americans for Gun Safety, until recently, the ATF had never released information on the number of crime guns traced back to gun stores. AGS acquired all of its data via Freedom of Information Act requests. The data reveals some troubling facts. According to the report, 96 of the 120 dealers named in the report remain open, and only 24 have been inspected by federal agents during the past 3\1/2\ years. When inspected, 18 of these 24 dealers were cited for at least one violation of federal gun laws and seven high crime dealers were cited more than five times. The AGS study focuses attention on negligent and irresponsible gun dealers. However, language included in the Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill will make it impossible for this data on such dealers to be made available to the public in the future. Language included in the omnibus specifically prohibits the release of information related to tracing requests on guns used in crimes. And that is not the only problem. Even more importantly, language in the bill mandates that the Justice Department destroy background check records for the purchase of guns within 24 hours of the gun purchase. Under current regulations, the ATF can retain the records from gun purchases for up to 90 days. This 90-day period gives law enforcement the opportunity to review and audit gun purchase records for illegal activity and problems with the background check system. The provision requiring the destruction of records within 24 hours was inserted into the bill without a debate or discussion of its potential impact. It is incomprehensible that, at a time when we are in a heightened state of alert to guard against terrorism, we are not providing law enforcement with more than 24 hours to examine information on weapons purchases. The gun provisions in the omnibus were never the subject of Senate hearings and are not supported by major law enforcement organizations. They undermine the efforts of the ATF to meet its responsibilities, weaken the public's right to know, and make it more difficult for other law enforcement agencies to do their job.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is difficult to oppose this bill because it funds many programs that I support and contains a number of provisions that I worked to have included. However, once again we are being asked to vote on legislation that does not reflect the will of the House and Senate. This bill cuts funding for important programs, while at the same time includes provisions not approved in either the House or Senate, while failing to include provisions passed by both chambers. Manufacturing has been hit hard in this country. Of the 3 million private sector jobs lost during this Administration, the vast majority, about 2.6 million, are in manufacturing. This bill drastically cuts one of the few programs we have to spur manufacturing. This is intolerable. The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program, which cofunds a nationwide system of manufacturing support centers to assist small and midsized manufacturers to modernize to compete in a demanding marketplace, is cut by 60 percent in this legislation. Although the program was funded at $105.9 million last year, the President requested an 88 percent cut in the program to only $12.6 million in his fiscal year 2004 budget. The House approved $39.6 million and the Senate $106 million in their appropriations bills. This conference report adopts the House level of $39.6 million, a 60 percent cut to the program. The President and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives didn't even compromise with the Senate, despite the support of 58 Senators pressing for a funding level of $110 million. They are not willing to assist small and medium sized manufacturing companies who are facing strong import competition and job losses. Further, this bill will deprive over 8 million workers of overtime pay. The administration proposed a regulation to end overtime pay for millions of working men and women. Although the House and Senate both voted to oppose this regulation, their will was ignored because of White House pressure and the language was dropped in conference. This omission will negatively impact such public servants as police officers and firefighters, including our military personnel who return home to become police officers or firefighters. Both the Senate and House versions of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce- Justice-State spending bill included language prohibiting the FCC from implementing its decision to allow a single company to own more TV stations in the same market. The current cap is 35 percent. Despite the expressed will of both houses, the bill before us allows more media concentration and raises the cap to 39 perecent. Allowing this kind of media consolidation could be harmful to consumers. Further, language in the bill mandates that the Justice Department destroy background check records for the purchase of guns within 24 hours of the gun purchase. Under current regulations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can retain the records from gun purchases for up to 90 days. This 90-day period gives law enforcement the opportunity to review and audit gun purchase records for illegal activity and problems with the background check system. The provision requiring the destruction of records within 24 hours was inserted into the bill without a debate or discussion of its potential impact. It is incomprehensible that we are in a heightened state of alert to guard against terrorism yet we are not providing law enforcement with more than 24 hours to examine information on weapons' purchases. Language in this bill will also postpone the country-of-origin labeling, COOL, rule that was previously enacted. The House bill would have delayed that provision for one year. This conference report contains a 2-year delay. Not only did the Senate strongly reject this provision previously, but, more importantly, this delay undermines efforts to ensure the safety of our nation's food supply. The recent mad cow incident in Washington underscored the importance of being able to trace the origin of agricultural products. If the infected cow had not been voluntarily marked as being of Canadian origin, we would not have been able to determine the origin of the disease in such an expeditious fashion. Making COOL mandatory will ensure that such incidents can be traced more quickly. The omnibus bill also denies many struggling Americans much-needed support services. For example, Section 105 of the Labor-HHS portion of the bill will allow the government to rescind unspent, though already obligated, welfare-to-work funds. By instructing the Secretary of Labor to recapture ``unexpended'' funds rather than ``unobligated'' funds, Michigan and several other states could lose a significant amount of this important funding. Michigan is threatened with losing $16 million that it has obligated in welfare-to-work funds for FY04. If Michigan loses these funds, Detroit alone will be unable to provide 6,000 welfare recipients with job search services, education and training programs, and other employment-related services. We need to protect our citizens from terrorism and crime, yet this bill fails to adequately fund the COPS program, an invaluable tool in making our streets and schools safer. To date, the COPS program has helped add thousands of police officers and school resource officers in Michigan. Unfortunately, this legislation cuts the COPS hiring program by $80 million--a 40 percent cut from 2003 levels and a more than 60 percent cut from 2002 levels. At a time when we are asking so much of our military, this legislation provides inadequate funding for our nation's veterans. This legislation cuts nearly $2 billion from the budget passed by the Senate in the spring allocated $63.77 billion for services at the Veterans Administration including health care, burial services and other commitments. This shortfall shortchanges our nation's veterans after we have made great demands on them and strong commitments to them. This bill also fails our children by mandating a .59 percent across- the-board cut which would reduce funding for No Child Left Behind programs by over $73 million, resulting in 24,000 fewer kids being served by title I. Overall, the Title I Education for the Disadvantaged Program would be $6 billion below the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed in January of 2002. This cut in funding would also reduce Head Start funding by $40 million, resulting in 5,500 fewer kids attending Head Start. I am also concerned about the private-school voucher program that this omnibus bill would create in the District of Columbia. This is a proposal that was stripped from the Senate's D.C. Appropriations bill, but squeaked through the House by just a couple of votes. I do not believe we should take our scarce taxpayer dollars away from public schools, where over 90 percent of our nation's children are educated, and divert them to private schools. Furthermore, in the No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110, Congress included strong accountability standards to demand better results from administrators, teachers, and students for all public schools. I believe we should concentrate on improving the educational level of all students at all DC public schools, rather than take some students out. This bill severely underfunds Great Lakes and other environmental programs, highway construction projects, law enforcement programs and funding to our veterans. I cannot support this legislation as it has been brought to the floor on a ``take it or leave it'' basis, violating procedures which assure the Senate's input. I hope that we can work out some corrective legislation which will have the broad bipartisan support many of these important programs deserve.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, after the Senate adjourns for the year, the plan is for the Senate to reconvene on January 20 of next year. Unless Congress acts to extend Federal unemployment benefits, the so- called Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program, before we adjourn, hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans face the holidays with the prospect of losing their unemployment benefits on January 1. This lack of action would put us in exactly the same situation as last year: going home to our loved ones without helping jobless Americans during the holiday season. At a minimum, we should extend the current Federal Unemployment Assistance Program for 6 months. At a minimum, we should stand by America's workers and help the unemployed during this holiday season. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, in January, about 90,000 current unemployed workers are likely to exhaust their regular State benefits each week. Absent congressional action, starting January 1 next year, workers who exhaust their regular State benefits will no longer be eligible for the additional Federal benefits. The only people who will continue to receive those benefits will be those who have begun to receive their Federal benefits by January 1. This chart shows where we are in terms of the Federal benefits. In the recession of 1974-1975, there were Federal benefits accumulating to 29 weeks. That is in addition to the 26 weeks of State benefits. In the 1981-1982 recession, again, 29 weeks of Federal benefits. In the 1990- 1991 recession, 26 weeks of Federal benefits. Currently, until December 31 of this year, there will be 13 weeks of Federal benefits that are offered in addition to the 26 weeks in each of our States. That is what will disappear December 31. This is a very modest program we have going. This is half of what we have done in the prior two recessions in terms of Federal benefits, slightly less than half of what we did in the recessions of 1974-1975 and 1981-1982, but exactly half of what we did in the 1990-1991 recession. Currently, we only have 13 weeks of Federal benefits. This is going to run out on December 31 unless we act before we leave. Some contend the issue of whether or not to extend the program and in what form can be dealt with when we return on January 20. I believe, however, by the time January 20 rolls around, it is going to be too late. In fact, we know it will be too late for thousands of unemployed who will have exhausted their benefits. So action is needed today. It is needed now or else this Federal benefit program, which is a modest program--again, I emphasize, half of what we have done in prior recessions--unless this is reauthorized today, it is going to run out and hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans are going to see their benefits exhausted without the benefit of the Federal program. In the month of January alone--this coming January--as many as 400,000 unemployed workers are going to exhaust their State benefits if we don't act. The number of long-term jobless--that is the people who have been jobless 6 months or more--grew in October to over 2 million workers for the first time since this recession began. That represents an increase of over 700,000 workers compared to March 2002 when the current Federal unemployment program was most recently authorized. The Federal extended benefits program which was implemented in the last recession did not end until the economy had added nearly 3 million jobs to the prerecession level. The current unemployment program is scheduled to end, although there are 3 million fewer private sector jobs than when this recession began. Renewing this Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program, this Federal benefits program, is essential under these circumstances. The comparison on this chart is dramatic between what we did in prior recessions and this recession. In prior recessions, we had twice the level of Federal benefits as we do now. We have a modest 13 weeks, half the level, and in the prior recession we waited to end the Federal program until millions of new jobs had been created. Unless we act today, we will have lost 3 million jobs and still will be ending a Federal program which is so critically essential to those people who are unemployed. The Department of Labor's announcement that 125,000 jobs were created in October and that the unemployment rate dropped to 6 percent, the first decline since I don't know how long--I don't have the exact date here, but in a long time--presents a glimmer of hope. It is a glimmer of hope at least in some places, but in my home State of Michigan the unemployment rate is 7.6 percent. We, like most other States, are very dependent upon a minimum level of unemployment benefits. It would be unconscionable for this Congress to leave without renewing this program. Factory employment in America declined for the 39th consecutive month by eliminating approximately 24,000 manufacturing jobs. So even though we had that slight increase in jobs in October, for the first time really, we are seeing a slight up-tick in the total number of jobs. We have at least some jobs being created. In the manufacturing sector, for the 39th consecutive month, we lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. America's manufacturing core has shed an average of over 50,000 jobs a month for the last 12 months. These manufacturing jobs, which build and sustain America's middle class, are disappearing. A total of over 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last few years. These are jobs that are good paying jobs, provide good health benefits and good retirement security. We simply cannot afford to let these jobs leave our country or be lost for good. In the meantime, while we are fighting the battle for manufacturing jobs, we should not go home for the holidays having failed to act to maintain the very modest Federal unemployment benefits program. I know there are many in this body who are determined to see us have the opportunity to act to extend this program before we leave for the recess. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator if he would modify his unanimous consent request to allow the Senator from Michigan, and then I believe the Senator from Washington, to each have 10 minutes following his remarks?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I wonder if the Senator might add to that UC--about how long does the Senator plan to speak, so I could then try to amend that UC to place myself in order?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the House-passed version of the Commerce, Justice and State Departments Appropriations Bill included provisions that, if adopted, would severely hamper efforts of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to enforce our nation's gun safety laws. Under current law, dealers are required to notify the BATFE of the sale of two or more handguns to the same person within five business days. The House-passed provisions would prohibit the public release of information related to multiple handgun sales. The House language would also prohibit the release of information related to tracing requests on guns used in crimes. Eliminating the public availability of this data would make it more difficult to monitor the activities of reckless gun dealers. In addition, the House-passed language would prohibit the BATFE from issuing a rule requiring Federal Firearm Licensees to take a physical inventory of their firearms. A physical inventory recently revealed that a Tacoma, WA, gun dealer could not account for the sniper rifle used by the Washington, D.C. area sniper and more than 200 other guns. The House language would have required the immediate destruction of records of approved firearms purchases and transfers generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The retention of these records has assisted law enforcement officials trying to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and identifying gun trafficking patterns. The House-passed provisions were never the subject of hearings and are not supported by any major law enforcement organizations. They could shield reckless and negligent gun dealers from public scrutiny and weaken the BATFE's oversight and enforcement authority. They should not be adopted by the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do ask unanimous consent that the hour which I might be entitled to under the postcloture rules be yielded to Senator Reid.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his analysis of this bill. I listened to the last part of it and I thought it was exactly on point. I particularly would like to emphasize his last point, which is that this is not the end of the Congress, this is just the end of a session, or nearing the end of a session. With 4 days' notice of a bill of this complexity--now, I think the bill itself is about 700 pages and there are hundreds of pages of commentary that go with it, but the idea that we should take up a bill of this complexity, when seniors are just having the first opportunity after 4 days to try to fathom what is in it, is a terrible mistake. The Senator from New Mexico was exactly right in urging that we not rush to consider this bill tomorrow and to adopt this bill. It took a great deal of effort to create Medicare. It was not until 20 years after Harry Truman first proposed the idea of a guaranteed health benefit for seniors that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare Program into law. It was fitting that Harry Truman was the program's first beneficiary. He paid his $3 premium and he enrolled in Medicare in 1965. We are confronting in this bill a turning away from Medicare's noble purpose. That purpose was to create an insurance pool for all seniors, where the risks and financial burdens are shared--not for the profit of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies but for the common good. The legislation before us is a fundamental and ill-advised restructuring of Medicare under the guise of adding a prescription drug benefit to the program. Many Members of Congress have worked for years to bring a Medicare prescription drug benefit to fruition. While the Senate-passed version of this bill had enough flaws to cause me, along with a number of colleagues, to vote against it, at least I was hopeful that some of these flaws would be corrected in the conference committee. Unfortunately, the prescription drug plan before us not only worsens the prescription drug program as adopted by the Senate, it has become a millstone dragging Medicare down with it. The promise of a prescription drug plan is being used to begin the unraveling of Medicare. First, there are the dangers for seniors created by the prescription drug provisions themselves. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 25 percent of retirees, with existing prescription drug coverage through a former employer, would lose that coverage under this bill's plan. That is about 2.7 million senior citizens who currently have good private insurance and are paying less now than they would have to under a Medicare prescription drug plan. That is 2.7 million retirees who will lose benefits, above and beyond the number of retirees who are projected to lose their benefits under the current trend of employers reducing prescription drug coverage for their retirees. The tax subsidies for employers included in this conference report are not enough to entice employers to keep their drug coverage for those 2.7 million retirees. Another fundamental flaw with the prescription drug benefit in this legislation is the lack of a guaranteed Medicare prescription drug plan. In the Senate bill, in the absence of two competing private plans offering a senior a prescription drug benefit, Medicare was the fallback. This approach was gutted in conference. Here is what the conference report provides. If one insurance company in a region offers a prescription drug benefit, regardless of how unattractive it is to seniors in terms of its premiums and copayments, both of which are left up to the insurance company, and if an HMO offers coverage in that region as a substitute to Medicare, no matter how unattractive that HMO is to seniors, and assuming that HMO also offers a prescription drug benefit, the senior will not be offered the fallback Medicare prescription drug benefit. Let me put that another way. We begin with the fact that private insurance companies offering a prescription drug policy under this bill could charge whatever premiums and copayments they want. If only one private prescription drug plan exists in a region, regardless of how unappealing it is, and one HMO offering a prescription drug plan also exists in that region, a senior has the choice of purchasing the bad prescription drug plan or leaving Medicare to join an HMO that he or she does not want to join, in order to get that prescription drug benefit. Forcing seniors to make the choice between staying in traditional Medicare or leaving Medicare and joining an HMO they otherwise would not join in order to get a prescription drug benefit is a thinly disguised attempt to unravel and privatize Medicare. That is a choice no senior citizen in America should have to make. Also troubling is the fact that the private company which offers the prescription drug benefit, and the company which offers the managed care alternative to Medicare, can be one and the same under the provisions of this bill. In addition, the prescription drug benefit in the legislation before us has a large gap in the prescription drug coverage. Once a senior's total drug spending reaches about $2,500 for the year, he or she will have to pay 100 percent of the cost of their prescriptions until their total drug spending reaches $3,600. This has come to be called the donut hole. This coverage gap will leave many seniors to pay the full cost of prescriptions at a time when they most need assistance. I know of no other insurance program that is so unfairly structured in that way. Adding insult to injury, while there is a gaping hole in coverage, there is no gap in the requirement to pay premiums. That obligation continues, even during the period that benefits are halted. One of the most disturbing aspects of this legislation is the fact that private insurance companies can use the purchasing power of their large number of beneficiaries to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, but Medicare is prohibited from doing so. This is one of the most unacceptable ways this bill protects private insurance companies and prescription drug companies from fair competition from Medicare, all at the expense of seniors and American taxpayers. Ask veterans how much prescription drugs cost at VA hospitals compared to their local pharmacy. Many of the drugs the VA offers are as little as half the price. The reason is the VA buys drugs in large quantities from drug manufacturers and has leverage in negotiating the prices. Instead of buying the 30-day supply of pills for someone on Medicare, why not allow Medicare to buy thousands of 30-day supplies at once for a fraction of the cost? That makes a lot of sense, but it is prohibited under this bill. The conferees left out some other real solutions to address the high cost of prescription drugs. Both the House- and Senate-passed versions included a provision to allow seniors to buy drugs in other countries at lower prices, so-called reimportation provision. However, these provisions have been stripped from the final bill. Even though the House and Senate have voted to allow reimportation with strong bipartisan votes, the conferees ignored these votes. More important, they ignored the problem of high prescription drug costs. Americans pay more for prescription drugs than any people in the world. U.S. taxpayers' dollars help to subsidize the research and development of many prescription drugs. Yet drug companies then sell them abroad for less. Because this bill does not address the high cost of prescription drugs, needed medicine will still be inaccessible for millions of our citizens. Unfortunately, the prescription drug benefit in this bill is what Newt Gingrich envisioned for the future of the entire Medicare Program. The former House Speaker said that he wanted Medicare to wither on a vine. To slowly chip away at the foundation of Medicare until it crumbles with a private network of managed care and drug companies eventually replacing Medicare is what he envisioned. Apparently AARP, which once stood for preserving social insurance for America's seniors, agrees with Mr. Gingrich. The AARP executive director and CEO wrote the forward to the former Speaker's book entitled ``Saving Lives and Saving Money,'' and later commented that ``Newt's ideas are influencing how we at AARP are thinking about our national role and in our advocating for system change.'' With this bill, the chief cooks of the Republican Party are following Newt Gingrich's ``wither on a vine'' recipe for the future of Medicare. The six so-called premium support demonstration projects created by this bill are the opening act for the privatization of Medicare. Proponents argue that Medicare's costs won't come down without a private sector competitor. But this bill, while purporting to promote competition between Medicare and private insurers, tilts the playing field against Medicare. First, there is a $12 billion so-called stabilization fund, which is in reality a slush fund. It is a slush fund for insurance companies to subsidize their policies. The $12 billion in slush money is not available to traditional Medicare, only to the private insurance companies. Second, the claims of the insurance industry that they will and must accept every senior who applies are disingenuous. Here is why. Private insurers will have the flexibility to alter and change their plans, to be able to cherry-pick the healthy senior. For example, if an insurance company designed a program with a very low monthly premium but with high copayments and high deductibles, this would be an incentive for a healthy senior to enroll, someone who could risk having to pay high copayments and deductibles because he or she has relatively infrequent medical treatment. Less healthy seniors, whose frequent medical treatments make it difficult or impossible for them to pay high copayments and high deductibles, would be left for the Medicare program to cover. This is privatization plus. It simply cannibalizes Medicare. Subsidizing insurance companies and allowing them to cherry-pick the beneficiary population means that insurance companies will be profiting mightily, while leaving the U.S. taxpayer to pick up the tab of insuring the less profitable population. How did we arrive at this ill-conceived legislation? Democrats were all but shut out of the conference committee which wrote this bill. Only two Democrats were allowed to participate in the conference negotiations. This massive shift in Medicare's approach and purpose was delivered publicly to us about 4 days ago. In this bill's 700 pages are provisions to dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a network of private insurers and drug companies whose goal is making a profit. There is a fundamental difference between private industry and government: Private companies fail if they do not make money, while government fails if we do not help citizens--especially those that cannot help themselves. I have heard from many of my constituents in the State of Michigan who need help in getting affordable prescription drugs. Let me read you a few excerpts from letters that I have received on this issue. One constituent writes: I am writing for your support for the Medicare Program. Please provide a Medicare drug benefit that is comprehensive, affordable and secure. Do not undermine Medicare as a defined benefit program through privatizing it. Another constituent writes: We do not want a drug bill that eliminates or reduces our current prescription plan that we now have . . . When I retired . . . this plan was part of my benefit package and we fell that it is their obligation to continue it, and the cost of our drugs should not be passed on to the tax payers. I get hundreds of messages a week like that from constituents with concerns over the privatizing of Medicare and the possible loss of existing prescription drug benefits. It is estimated that this bill, if it becomes law, would cause 138,000 seniors in Michigan currently receiving prescription drug benefits to lose some or all of those benefits. And 90,000 seniors in my State who are Medicaid beneficiaries with a current prescription drug coverage will be worse off if this bill becomes law than they are under current law. A fundamental restructuring of Medicare of this magnitude demands careful and thoughtful deliberation. The conference report contains a large amount of new material not included in either the House-passed or Senate-passed bills. Hastily acting on this legislation is fundamentally unfair to millions of seniors who want and deserve to be treated fairly. I predict that when seniors become familiar with this bill's details, there will be a crescendo of opposition. The siren song you hear now principally from our Republicans colleagues is that competition is necessary to drive the cost of health care down. The reality of this bill is not competition but government subsidies for insurance companies while allowing them to carve out the most profitable segment in the business--caring for the healthiest-- leaving the seniors with greatest need as the responsibility of the Federal government. Privatizing the most profitable part with a subsidy is not competition; it is a huge gift to private companies at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Supporters of this legislation say they are harnessing the power of the marketplace to drive down prices. The reality is just the opposite. They are hobbling the Medicare program in the prescription drug program by letting the private provider use its purchasing power to drive down its drug prices, but not letting Medicare do the same; and in the dismantling of Medicare, by pushing people out of Medicare into private HMOs in order to obtain a prescription drug benefit. The bill before us will begin undoing 37 years of progress in Medicare. It is an ill-advised assault on the one program that guarantees medical care to our most vulnerable population, our senior citizens. An historic opportunity is being squandered if we adopt this bill. Our Nation's seniors deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I want to call my colleagues' attention to the loss of one of the most influential civic and religious leaders in Flint, MI, Dr. Avery Aldridge, who passed away at the age of 78 on November 1, 2003. He is greatly mourned by his wife and family, his church community, and people in my home State of Michigan who knew and loved him as a man of great faith, devoted to his family, and a voice for justice and equality in the African American community. Dr. Aldridge was born in Widener, AR on February 9, 1925, the fourth of nine children. He completed his secondary education in Memphis, TN, and from there was inducted in the Army in 1943. He served as a Sergeant during World War II, defending the cause of freedom for his country until his honorable discharge in 1946. He then settled in Flint, MI where he married Mildred Light and had two children, Karen and Derrick. Dr. Aldridge and his wife were dedicated members of Antioch Baptist Church where he served as General Superintendent of the Sunday School and was later ordained into the ministry. In December, 1956, Dr. Aldridge founded Foss Avenue Missionary Baptist Church with his wife, Mildred, and two others. The church has grown through the years to a congregation of two thousand families, with 50 auxiliaries and committees, an elementary and secondary school, a credit union, an activity center and a free clothing center. Dr. Aldridge also led Foss Avenue to initiate a small business center to train youth for employment, provide food baskets to those in need, organize a prison ministry and annually provide Thanksgiving Day dinner to all incarcerated in the Genessee County Jail. Dr. Aldridge's vision and leadership also supported four missionaries to Africa, and led to the founding of Concerned Pastors for Social Action (CPSA), the CPSA Courier, a weekly community and religious publication, and Faith Access to Community Economic Development (FACED), a community development organization. Dr. Aldridge was a lifelong learner and furthered his education at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and the University of Michigan-Flint. He believed strongly in the value of education and supported black colleges across the country, as well as scholarships for local youth. Because of his work, he was awarded several honorary degrees through the years. Dr. Avery was committed to serving the needs of people and improving the quality of community life. He rose to prominence in Flint during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and was a calming influence in the city during tensions in the wake of the Detroit riots in 1967. He became known as ``The Rights Activist,'' serving on local, State, and national commissions, including the Flint Human Relations Commission, the Flint Housing Commission, the Michigan AIDS Policy Commission, and the National Holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission. I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the life and ministry of Reverend Dr. Avery Aldridge who will be missed by the many people whose lives he touched. I hope his family takes comfort in knowing that his legacy will stand as an inspiration for generations to come.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, an article in the Washington Post highlighted concerns about limits on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ability to pursue terrorists who try to buy guns. After September 11, 2001, the FBI launched an initiative to notify Federal law enforcement officials and other national security officials when suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list attempt to purchase a firearm. However, according to the Washington Post article, an interpretation of current law by the Attorney General has precluded Federal agents from obtaining any details about gun purchase transactions unless the purchaser is identified by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as a prohibited buyer. The Post article cited situations in which law enforcement officials have not been able to pursue known terrorists armed with a firearm. According to the Washington Post, as many as 21 suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have attempted to buy guns since the spring of 2003. According to Justice Department officials cited in the Post article, the rules established by the Attorney General prevent Federal officials from sharing information with investigators about legal gun buyers, even if these gun buyers are suspected terrorists. Law enforcement officials told the Post that the FBI frequently does not know the whereabouts of suspected terrorists on its watch lists. In such cases, learning where a suspected terrorist bought a firearm and what address they provided could be extremely helpful to counterterrorism investigators. To assist the FBI in monitoring and apprehending suspected terrorists, Senator Lautenberg introduced the Terrorist Apprehension Act. This bill would require NICS to alert the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement officials anytime an individual on a terrorist watch list attempts to buy a firearm. I believe this is common sense homeland security legislation, and I hope the Congress will enact it quicky.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is difficult to oppose a bill that has a number of provisions that I not only support, but worked to have included in the bill. However, the process and the product are deeply flawed and I cannot support it. There are many objectionable provisions that were added to this bill that were not in either the House or Senate versions of this legislation; for instance the retroactive MTBE liability waiver, underground storage tank provisions that would require taxpayers, rather than polluters, to pay $2 billion to clean up leaking underground storage tanks containing gasoline and other toxic chemicals, even at sites where viable responsible parties are identifiable, and the numerable State-specific projects that will cost billions of dollars and were, again, not considered by the House or the Senate. The Senate passed a comprehensive and balanced Energy bill in July. Then, after weeks of closed-door meetings with virtually no input from Democratic conferees, the Republicans put forward this ``take it or leave it'' Energy bill that is drastically different than the bill that the Senate passed. We have no opportunity to amend this bill, or choose among its good and bad provisions. It is all or nothing. There are simply too many provisions on the negative side of the ledger. The massive power failure of August 2003, on top of the massive price manipulation perpetrated by Enron and others, provided additional proof, proof that shouldn't have been needed, that the United States' deregulated energy markets are not functioning well. This bill doesn't help that problem. It may make it worse. The Conference report would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1934, PUHCA, longstanding consumer and investor protection legislation governing energy industry structure and consolidation, 1 year after enactment of this bill. Unfortunately, the bill fails to provide adequate protections to prevent industry market manipulation and consumer abuses. Governor Granholm of Michigan has said that replacing PUHCA with ``weaker anti-fraud and market manipulation rules'' could weaken the States' ability to protect consumers. Further, while the enactment of this legislation's mandatory reliability provisions would be an improvement over the current voluntary system of standards, the bill fails to ensure that regional transmission organizations will have the authority to enforce those standards in order to prevent, or respond effectively to, another blackout. Uncertainty in the power industry threatens our economy and security and creates the loss of investor confidence in U.S. energy markets. If necessary, we should adopt a stand-alone bill that sets mandatory reliability standards, requires utilities to join regional transmission organizations and establishes consistent rules for the enforcement of standards nationwide than pass an Energy bill filled with so many harmful provisions. In addition, two provisions in this conference report would significantly impede the ability of Federal and State agencies to investigate and prosecute fraud and price manipulation in energy markets. These provisions would make it easier to manipulate energy markets without detection. Section 1281 of the electricity title states: ``Any request for information to a designated contract market, registered derivatives transaction execution facility, board of trade, exchange, or market involving accounts, agreements, contracts, or transactions in commodities (including natural gas, electricity and other energy commodities) within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shall be directed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.'' Section 332(c) of the oil and gas title contains similar language specifically applicable to investigations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. If adopted, this would curtail all State and Federal authority, other than CFTC, to investigate wrongdoing in CFTC-regulated markets. This would impede FERC, Department of Justice, and State investigations of fraud and manipulation in these markets. It would turn the CFTC into an impediment for all other Federal and State investigations into matters within CFTC-regulated markets, which would be an unprecedented intrusion into the enforcement of State and Federal consumer protection laws. Had this approach been in effect in recent years, FERC would not have been able to investigate manipulation of the energy markets, including the fraud and manipulation perpetrated by Enron through EnronOnline. Section 1282 of the electricity title would impose a higher criminal standard, ``knowingly and willfully,'' for filing false information and for improper round trip trading than exists under current law. The new round trip trading provision is inconsistent with current law and the Cantwell amendment, which prohibited market manipulation in electricity markets, and which recently passed the Senate. For example, section 4c of the Commodity Exchange Act states it is ``unlawful for any person to enter into . . . a transaction . . . involving the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery'' if the transaction ``is, of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as a `wash sale' or . . . is a fictitious sale.'' There is no requirement that the violation be ``willful.'' Manipulation is difficult to prove even under current law. By raising the burden of proof, this provision will make it nearly impossible to prove illegal round trip trading or wash sales. Rather than weakening the laws preventing fraud and manipulation in energy markets, the Congress should be strengthening these prohibitions. There are other provisions that would affect FERC's ability to ensure markets are transparent and fair. The ``Enron loophole'' was attached during the conference on an omnibus appropriation bill in 2000, and was a factor underlying the massive manipulation of the energy markets in 2000 and 2001. The provisions in this bill, attached under hurried circumstances would widen the loophole and increase the chances of more manipulation and dysfunctional markets. This is the wrong response to the current crisis of confidence and integrity in our energy markets. I am also disappointed that the conference report on this bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to ``as expeditiously as practicable, acquire petroleum in amounts sufficient to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the [1 billion] barrel capacity,'' but does not include any direction to DOE to fill the SPR in a manner that minimizes the cost to the taxpayer or maximizes the overall supply of oil in the United States. That second direction is critical--otherwise the filling of the SPR could lead to continuing high gas prices. The Levin-Collins amendment, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate last month, directed DOE to develop procedures to fill the SPR in a manner that minimizes the cost to the taxpayer and maximizes the overall supply of oil in the United States. The Levin-Collins amendment expressed the sense of the Senate that the DOE's current procedures for filling the SPR are too costly for the taxpayers and have not improved our overall energy security. DOE's internal documents state that filling the SPR without regard to the price and supply of oil in the global markets exacerbates price problems in those markets. By increasing demand for oil at a time when oil is in scarce supply, the SPR program pushes the price of oil up even further. Moreover, when near-term prices are higher than future prices, oil companies will meet the additional demand for crude oil by removing oil from their own inventories rather than purchasing high- priced oil on the spot market. Thus, under these price conditions, which have generally prevailed over the past year and a half, adding oil to the SPR will lead to a corresponding decrease in private sector inventories. Since market prices are so closely tied to inventory levels, filling the SPR under these market conditions both depletes private sector inventories and pushes up prices for America's consumers. Furthermore, according to the Department of Energy's own analyses, taking costs into consideration--as the DOE did prior to early 2002-- can save taxpayers several hundreds of millions of dollars over the span of a few years. Acquiring more oil when prices are low will increase revenues to the Treasury from the sale of high-priced royalty oil that is not needed to fill the SPR. Secondly, allowing oil companies to defer deliveries to the SPR when prices are high in return for the delivery of additional barrels of oil at a later date--as DOE did prior to early 2002--enables the DOE to increase the amount of oil in the SPR without any additional costs. In summary, the unqualified direction in the bill to DOE to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1 billion barrels is likely to increase the cost of crude oil and crude oil products, such as gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel and jet fuel, to American consumers and businesses, as well as to the taxpayer, with uncertain benefits to our national security. Also, while I support the provision in this legislation that would increase the use of ethanol to 5 billion gallons by 2012 and 3.1 billion gallons by 2005, it needs to be reasonable in a way that ensures the continued viability of the Highway Trust Fund. Twice the Senate passed legislation that included a Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, VTEEC, that would address the shortfall in revenue to the Highway Trust Fund that was caused by the ethanol tax exemption. In addition to taxing ethanol, the VTEEC, as passed by the Senate, would maintain the credit for ethanol production by paying for it from the general treasury, create a biodiesel credit and ensure that all taxes charged on ethanol go to the highway trust fund. Unfortunately, the arrangement worked out by House and Senate Republicans gives ethanol blenders the new option to receive a 5.2 cent tax credit after paying the federal gas tax or they could continue receiving the current ethanol exemption of 5.2 cents. Since most blenders likely would continue to choose to receive the exemption up front rather than wait for a tax credit, the highway trust fund would still lose billions of dollars per year. Efforts by Senator Baucus to address this problem were approved by the Senate conferees, but was refused by the House. While I support increased ethanol production, it is imperative that increased ethanol production does not diminish the Highway Trust Fund. Additionally, I am troubled that this legislation exempts producers of MTBE from liability. MTBE, an oxygenate that can and should be replaced by ethanol, is a potentially harmful product and its producers should not be exempt from liability. In Michigan, it has been estimated that MTBE has contaminated ground water around over 700 leaking underground storage tank sites. Further, as many as 22 water supply wells have been deemed unusable due to MTBE contamination. Because of this MTBE liability waiver, the State of Michigan may have to pay over $200 million to clean up those sites. Governor Granholm has strongly protested that we need to hold manufacturers accountable for the damage that MTBE does to public health and the environment, not guard them from liability which then allows them to pass the cleanup costs on to the States. As I stated earlier, this bill has a number of provisions that I support and that I worked to have included in it. These include tax credits for advanced technology vehicles and joint research and development between the Government and the private sector to promote the expanded use of advanced vehicle technologies. But in the end, the good provisions must be weighed against the large number of bad provisions, and there are too many objectionable provisions for me to support this bill. The Senate has worked to create a national energy policy for years. In just a few weeks, without bipartisan negotiation, this piece of legislation was created. We should work to complete a long-term, comprehensive energy plan that provides consumers with affordable and reliable energy, increases domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner, invests in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and protects the environment and public health.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the November 3, 2003 edition of Air Safety Week a connection was drawn between airline safety and gun safety. And, while some people may think there is no connection between airline safety and gun safety, the connection is serious. Attention has been paid to potential vulnerabilities of commercial aircraft to terrorists armed with shoulder-fired missiles. A more pedestrian but an equally deadly potential threat looms from terrorists armed with .50 caliber sniper rifles. The .50 caliber sniper rifle is among the most powerful weapons legally available. These weapons are not only powerful, but they're accurate. According to the House Government Reform staff report, the most common .50 caliber weapon can accurately hit targets a mile away and can inflict damage to targets more than four miles away. The thumb- size bullets, which come in armor-piercing and incendiary variants, can easily punch through aircraft fuselages, fuel tanks, and engines. These weapons pose a serious threat to planes both in the air and on the ground. According to a recent Violence Policy Center report, aircraft landing are particularly vulnerable, as illustrated by the testimony of Ronnie G. Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. As an expert witness during a 1999 criminal trial, Barrett was asked about the relative difficulty of hitting a stationary target and a moving target, such as a motorcycle or an airplane. He was asked about shooting at an airplane ``coming in to land . . . descending over 120 miles an hour.'' He testified: ``If it is coming directly at you, it is almost as easy. Just like bird hunting. But yes, it is more difficult if it is horizontally, or moving from left to right . . . '' In other words, according to Barrett, shooting at a moving object coming directly at one is ``almost as easy'' as a stationary target, an answer that is consistent with detailed instructions given in a variety of U.S. Army manuals about engaging aircraft with small arms. Despite these facts, long-range .50 caliber weapons are less regulated than handguns. Buyers must simply be 18 years old and submit to a Federal background check. In addition, there is no Federal minimum age requirement for possessing a .50 caliber weapon and no regulation on second-hand sales. I believe the easy availability and the increased popularity of the .50 caliber sniper rifle poses a danger to airline safety, as well as homeland security. That's why last year I cosponsored Senator Feinstein's Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act. This bill would change the way .50 caliber guns are regulated by placing them under the requirements of the National Firearms Act. This would subject these weapons to the same registration and background check requirements as other weapons of war, such as machine guns. This is a necessary step to protecting the safety of airline travelers. The .50 caliber sniper rifle is among the most powerful and least regulated firearms legally available. Tighter regulation is needed. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein's bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by a number of my colleagues in submitting a resolution in the hope that the Canadian government will cease its support of the slaughter of seals. The images from this senseless slaughter are difficult to view but even harder to accept: skinning of live animals, some no older than 12 days, and the dragging of live seals across the ice using steel hooks. On November 15, 2003, the Government of Canada opened a commercial hunt on seals in the waters off the east coast of Canada. This hunt is supported by millions of dollars of subsidies to the sealing industry every year from the Canadian Government. These subsidies facilitate the slaughter of innocent animals and artificially extend the life of an industry that has ceased to exist in most developed countries. These subsides can not be justified and should be ended. Few would argue that this industry still serves a legitimate purpose. Two years ago, an economic analysis of the Canadian sealing industry concluded that it provided the equivalent on only 100 to 150 full-time jobs each year. In addition, the analysis found that these jobs cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $30,000 each. The report concluded that when the cost of government subsidies provided to the industry was weighed against the landed value of the seals each year, the net value of the sealing industry was close to zero. There is little about the Canadian sealing industry that is self- sustaining. The operating budget of the Canadian Sealers Association continues to be paid by the Canadian government; their rent each month is paid by the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador; seal processing companies continue to receive subsidies through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; Human Resources Development Canada, and other federal funding programs for staffing and capital costs. The sealing industry, through the Sealing Industry Development Council and other bodies, receives assistance for product research and development, and for product marketing initiatives, both overseas and domestically. All the costs of the seal hunt for ice breaking services and for search and rescue, provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, are underwritten by Canadian taxpayers. Many believe that subsidizing an industry that only operates for a few weeks a year and employs only a few hundred people on a seasonal, part-time basis is simply a bad investment on the part of the Canadian government. The HSUS has already called upon the Canadian government to end these archaic subsidies and instead work to diversify the economy in the Atlantic region by facilitating long-term jobs and livelihoods. The clubbing of baby seals can't be defended or justified, and Canada should end it just as we ended the Alaska baby seal massacre 20 years ago. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult nomination for the Armed Services Committee. We worked very hard for over a year to ensure that we developed all of the relevant facts so we could make an informed decision. In fact, this nomination was first sent to the Congress in the last session and then was resubmitted in this session. It is totally appropriate that we took this time to address Major General Clark's nomination because PFC Barry Winchell, a soldier serving in Major General Clark's command at Fort Campbell, was brutally murdered by another soldier on July 5, 1999. Fort Campbell is a large fort, perhaps 25,000 soldiers and 46,000 family members. We were interested in what the command climate was in Major General Clark's command, particularly as it related to his command's implementation of the Department's Homosexual Conduct Policy. We also wanted to see how Major General Clark responded after the murder. Major General Clark asked the Army Inspector General to conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the murder. The Inspector General conducted this investigation and also conducted an assessment of the command climate at Fort Campbell before the murder. Neither the investigation nor the command climate assessment found fault with Major General Clark's actions. We met with Private Winchell's family. We met with Major General Clark on a number of occasions. We met with other Army officials. We met with organizations and individuals who expressed an interest in this nomination. So under Senator Warner's leadership, I believe our committee has given full consideration to the nomination of Major General Clark and the events which have to be described as tragic when considering that nomination. Every one of us, every human being who has knowledge of this incident, is appalled by the brutal murder of a soldier sleeping in his barracks. So we first wanted to look at, again, the incident and the command climate prior to the incident. We reviewed the Inspector General's report that stated that the chain of command, from commanding general through company leaders, responded appropriately to matters with respect to the enforcement of the Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct Policy. One of the most difficult issues had to do with the statement of Private Winchell's family that they requested a personal meeting with Major General Clark and they did not receive a personal meeting with him. I think the fact they made that request and it was not complied with was troubling to all of us. As we dug into it, we heard from Major General Clark on this issue. He looked us in the eye and said he never received such a request. That is not to say the request was not made. It is to say that I think most of us believed Major General Clark when he said that request was never forwarded to him. What happened to that request we do not know, and perhaps nobody ever will know. Major General Clark wrote a letter to the family. It was a heartfelt letter. It was a personal letter about the death of their son. It was really a comment that he added in that letter, which was so personal and so heartfelt, that I think persuaded many of us that he was honest when he stated that there is no way he would not respond to a family request to meet with him. As others have mentioned, he did have a special responsibility, as the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, to ensure that justice was done and to make sure nothing he would say would in any way create error in that trial. The murderer, PVT Calvin Glover, was convicted of premeditated murder by the court-martial, which was convened by Major General Clark. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and, of course, a dishonorable discharge from the Army. Another soldier was convicted of obstruction of justice and making a false official statement and was sentenced to 12\1/2\ years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. To the extent that justice can ever be done following a brutal murder of this kind, justice was done in this case. It was done under the leadership of the convening authority, Major General Clark himself. In the end, looking at all the information that is available to us, I have concluded that we should confirm this nomination and that it would be appropriate, at the same time, however, for us to take note of the events relative to this nomination, that surround it, the length of time this nomination has been pending, all of the inquiries and investigations and reports which have been requested, and hope all of this together will lead to a different environment and a different climate in the unit at issue here. I ask for 1 additional minute, if I may, from the majority side.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Alabama. When we put all this together, the hope, I think of all of us, is that the kind of climate that apparently existed in that one unit, not known to Major General Clark--because the Inspector General found no evidence that he knew of any anti-gay climate in any of the units, much less that one. There was in one unit some anti-gay rhetoric which was immediately responded to by the captain in charge of that unit. As a matter of fact, the captain counseled the noncommissioned officer and put an immediate end to the anti-gay rhetoric. But that was not known to General Clark. For all these reasons, I think it is appropriate we now confirm this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.