Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I congratulate Senators Santorum and Lieberman and everybody else who has had a voice and hand in shaping and crafting the CARE legislation before us. It makes a significant contribution to the strength of volunteer organizations and charitable organizations. It is a very significant contribution to that wonderful cause and to this wonderful land of ours. I commend them. I would like to take a moment here to highlight a provision in the managers' amendment to strengthen the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to detect, investigate, and punish violations of Federal securities law. This provision has been added to the CARE Act, because we have had the support and we have been able to utilize the efforts of the managers of this bill, Senators Grassley and Baucus, and of the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes. This is an effort that Senator Bill Nelson and I and others have been involved in for some time. Now it will come to fruition, at least in the Senate, tomorrow when we adopt this legislation, including the managers' amendment. I also thank the Securities and Exchange Commission for its assistance in crafting this legislation and for the agency's support of our efforts to enact it into law. Senator Bill Nelson and I and others have been working on this addition to the SEC enforcement powers for a long time. We are very grateful to all those who have worked with us, including Senators Corzine and Biden who cosponsored the SEC Civil Enforcement Act, S. 183, which we introduced earlier this year--in January--which is identical to the language which is in the managers' amendment. The SEC Chairman, Bill Donaldson, is very supportive of our SEC enforcement legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the SEC Chairman supporting this provision and describing it as one that will ``significantly supplement and strengthen the Commission's ongoing enforcement efforts'' be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week the Detroit Police Department destroyed 5,037 guns by taking them to the Rouge Steel Company in Dearborn, MI, and melting them into recycled steel. Two dump trucks traveled under guard to deliver the weapons, which apparently included AK 47s, sawed off shotguns, Uzis and machine guns, from police headquarters to the steel plant. At the plant, steelworkers melted the firearms by pouring 2,600 degree molten steel over them. Detroit Police Chief Jerry Oliver said that taking these guns out of circulation will save lives. That is good news. Last year alone, 26 children lost their lives in incidents of gun violence in Detroit. The Detroit Police Department has been working hard to reduce gun violence in the city. And every gun that's taken off the street helps make this job a little bit easier. The fight to reduce gun violence must be waged on many fronts. We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, prevent children from gaining access to firearms, and give law enforcement the resources they need to thoroughly investigate gun-related crimes. At the same time, we have to vigorously prosecute criminals who commit gun-related crimes. We in the Senate should take up and pass common sense gun safety legislation. And we need to provide adequate resources to police departments. Unfortunately, we are fighting an uphill battle. Common sense gun safety legislation is blocked by the National Rifle Association and its allies. The President's budget proposes massive cuts to COPs and other critical law enforcement programs. And Attorney General Ashcroft, while indicating the Bush Administration's support for the current ban on assault weapons, recently refused to support reauthorization of the ban. Melting those guns in Dearborn last week was a welcome event for all of us who care about reducing gun violence. But it would surely have been better if those guns had never made it onto the street in the first place. Absent adequate funding for police departments and the passage of common sense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I fear that truckloads of guns will remain on our streets, in the hands of criminals, threatening our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to restore funding for COPs, close the gun show loophole, and reauthorize the assault weapons ban this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased that this supplemental appropriations bill contains language proposed by Senator Stabenow and myself that will increase security inspections of trucks hauling municipal solid waste into Michigan from Canada. At a time when we are increasing security measures at all levels to protect our citizens, it doesn't make sense to allow 130 to 140 truckloads of waste cross into Michigan every day from Canada without inspection. On January 1, 2003, the city of Toronto began shipping all of its municipal solid waste 1.1 million tons--to Michigan's landfills. As a result, thousands of truckloads of waste cross the Blue Water Bridge and the Ambassador Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit without inspection. Even though Customs recently issued a memo announcing that it would increase security measures for municipal solid waste trucks, citing security concerns related to September 11, it reversed that decision on February 7, 2003, the same day that the Homeland Security national threat level was raised to level orange. Therefore, these trucks will continue to be treated as a low-risk commodity, which will allows these trucks carrying tons of municipal solid waste to cross the Michigan- Canadian border with minimal scrutiny. Our amendment, that has been included in this bill, will ensure that these trucks are inspected before they cross the Ambassador and Blue Water Bridges. Further, the amendment provides that the Blue Water Bridge will receive radiation detection equipment by May 1, 2003. We cannot take the chance that harmful materials will be transported into Michigan on one of these trucks. Our amendment will help to prevent that scenario by ensuring the inspection of these municipal solid waste trucks at the border.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to have national criminal history information searches undertaken to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. There would be no expense to the government and the searches would require the consent of the employee or applicant for employment. Large numbers of critical non-governmental facilities from power plants to schools to hospitals are protected by private security firms and their civilian security officers. Keeping these facilities secure from terrorism or other forms of violent attack is critical to our national security. Yet currently most private security employers cannot request timely national criminal background check information on the very people they need to hire to protect these key facilities. This legislation seeks to correct that. This bill would authorize private security firms to request Federal background checks on current or prospective employees through the appropriate state agencies, thereby permitting relevant criminal history information to be considered in the licensing and employment of private security officers. The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most effectively conducted using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries--for instance, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries--to check their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that supported passage of those laws, particularly the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, support passage of this bill as well. This legislation will enhance our Nation's security. As an adjunct to our Nation's law enforcement officers, private security guards are responsible for the protection of numerous critical components of our Nation's infrastructure, including power generation facilities, hazardous materials manufacturing facilities, water supply and delivery facilities, oil and gas refineries, and food processing plants. The approximately 13,000 private security companies in the United States employ about 1.5 million persons nationwide. Given the critical nature of the facilities private security officers are hired to protect, it is imperative that we provide sufficient access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources. Currently we do not. Relying upon a Federal bill passed in the early 1970's, 37 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation authorizing State agencies to request both State and Federal criminal history record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases for private security officers are the exception rather than the rule. That is because only 20 States plus the District of Columbia regularly access the Federal database for private security officers, and only two-- California and Illinois--do so in a way that ensures a timely response. In many jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted sporadically, if at all. Indeed, in approximately 17 of the 37 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched for private security officers. An additional 13 States have not even passed legislation authorizing any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 30 States neither the State agencies nor the private security employers typically have any access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 30 States, an employment applicant in one State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The state reviewing the applicant would have no idea a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database. Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, the Federal searches conducted on new employees often take 90 to 120 days, if not longer. While checks are pending, security guards frequently are provided temporary licenses. This 90 to 120 day period is more than enough time for a guard with a temporary license to perpetrate dangerous acts. In light of our urgent need to strengthen the security of our homeland, this lack of timely access to criminal history information is unacceptable. An article that appeared earlier this year in USA Today entitled ``Private Security Guards Are Homeland's Weak Link'' got it right when it said, ``more often than not, private security guards who protect millions of lives and billions of dollars in real estate offer a false sense of security.'' We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this crucial criminal history information. This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved. First, the bill permits private security employers to request a prompt search of the FBI criminal history database for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their state's identification bureau or similar state agency designated by the Attorney General. Employers will not be granted direct access to the FBI records. Instead, states will serve as intermediaries between employers and the FBI to: 1. ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; 2. prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and 3. minimize the FBI's administrative burden of having to respond to background check requests from countless different sources. The program will not cost the Federal Government anything. The legislation allows the FBI, and states if they so choose, to charge reasonable fees to security firms to recover their costs of carrying out this act. Second, the bill protects employee and prospective employee privacy. Before an FBI background check can be conducted, the employee or applicant for employment must grant an employer written consent to request the FBI database search. In addition, the criminal history reports received by the States will not be disseminated to employers. Instead, in States that have standards regulating private security guard employment, designated State agencies will simply be required to use the information provided by the FBI in applying their State standards. For those States that have no standards, the States will be instructed to inform requesting employers whether or not employees or applicants have been convicted of either: 1. a felony; 2. a violent misdemeanor within the past ten years; or 3. a crime of dishonesty within the past ten years. Thus, in these situations, only the fact that a particular conviction exists or not will be provided by States to employers, and the privacy of the records themselves will be maintained. All information provided to employers pursuant to this act must be provided to the employees or prospective employees. Furthermore, the bill establishes strong criminal penalties for those who might falsely certify they are authorized security firms or otherwise use information obtained pursuant to this act beyond the act's intended purposes. Third, the bill protects States' interests. The bill does not impose an unfunded mandate on the states. It reserves the right of States to charge reasonable fees to employers for their costs in administering this act. Moreover, if a State wishes to opt out of this statutory regime, it may do so at any time. This legislation is long overdue. It strikes the right balance between the need for States and employers to gain access to this critical information and the privacy rights of current and prospective security guards. We have worked with the FBI to expedite the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Most importantly, passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland defense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today it is my great pleasure to congratulate the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy for 125 years of excellence in education. On April 4, 2003, faculty, students, and members of the community will gather to commemorate not only U of D Jesuit's achievements in education, but also its commitment to the community of Detroit. For 125 years, the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy has provided expanding educational opportunities to a wide array of students across the Detroit metropolitan area. Since its founding in 1877, U of D Jesuit has continually increased its academic offerings to students. The school added an academy serving seventh and eighth grade students in 1973 and is now known as one of Michigan's premier private college preparatory schools. In 1977, U of D Jesuit made the critical decision to remain in Detroit. Despite pressure from teachers and alumni to move the school out of the city, the Jesuits in Rome urged the school to remain in Detroit to continue pursuing their mission of justice in education. Since then, U of D Jesuit has strived to offer its students a rich multicultural environment while also providing a challenging and meaningful educational experience. The diversity that now exists within the school is both an incredible asset and an essential component of its character. Today, U of D Jesuit offers its students excellent educational opportunities while teaching them the importance of diversity and commitment to their community. The student body at U of D Jesuit draws from nearly 70 different communities in the Detroit metropolitan area. Students come from a variety of religious and cultural backgrounds, yet they all share the common goal of improving their school and community. The University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy truly demonstrates an unwavering commitment to shaping young men into ``Men for Others.'' I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the Senate in offering my deepest congratulations to the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy as they celebrate 125 years of commitment to the Detroit area and excellence in education. I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to have national criminal history information searches undertaken to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. There would be no expense to the government and the searches would require the consent of the employee or applicant for employment. Large numbers of critical non-governmental facilities from power plants to schools to hospitals are protected by private security firms and their civilian security officers. Keeping these facilities secure from terrorism or other forms of violent attack is critical to our national security. Yet currently most private security employers cannot request timely national criminal background check information on the very people they need to hire to protect these key facilities. This legislation seeks to correct that. This bill would authorize private security firms to request Federal background checks on current or prospective employees through the appropriate state agencies, thereby permitting relevant criminal history information to be considered in the licensing and employment of private security officers. The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most effectively conducted using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries--for instance, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries--to check their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that supported passage of those laws, particularly the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, support passage of this bill as well. This legislation will enhance our Nation's security. As an adjunct to our Nation's law enforcement officers, private security guards are responsible for the protection of numerous critical components of our Nation's infrastructure, including power generation facilities, hazardous materials manufacturing facilities, water supply and delivery facilities, oil and gas refineries, and food processing plants. The approximately 13,000 private security companies in the United States employ about 1.5 million persons nationwide. Given the critical nature of the facilities private security officers are hired to protect, it is imperative that we provide sufficient access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources. Currently we do not. Relying upon a Federal bill passed in the early 1970's, 37 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation authorizing State agencies to request both State and Federal criminal history record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases for private security officers are the exception rather than the rule. That is because only 20 States plus the District of Columbia regularly access the Federal database for private security officers, and only two-- California and Illinois--do so in a way that ensures a timely response. In many jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted sporadically, if at all. Indeed, in approximately 17 of the 37 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched for private security officers. An additional 13 States have not even passed legislation authorizing any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 30 States neither the State agencies nor the private security employers typically have any access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 30 States, an employment applicant in one State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The state reviewing the applicant would have no idea a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database. Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, the Federal searches conducted on new employees often take 90 to 120 days, if not longer. While checks are pending, security guards frequently are provided temporary licenses. This 90 to 120 day period is more than enough time for a guard with a temporary license to perpetrate dangerous acts. In light of our urgent need to strengthen the security of our homeland, this lack of timely access to criminal history information is unacceptable. An article that appeared earlier this year in USA Today entitled ``Private Security Guards Are Homeland's Weak Link'' got it right when it said, ``more often than not, private security guards who protect millions of lives and billions of dollars in real estate offer a false sense of security.'' We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this crucial criminal history information. This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved. First, the bill permits private security employers to request a prompt search of the FBI criminal history database for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their state's identification bureau or similar state agency designated by the Attorney General. Employers will not be granted direct access to the FBI records. Instead, states will serve as intermediaries between employers and the FBI to: 1. ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; 2. prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and 3. minimize the FBI's administrative burden of having to respond to background check requests from countless different sources. The program will not cost the Federal Government anything. The legislation allows the FBI, and states if they so choose, to charge reasonable fees to security firms to recover their costs of carrying out this act. Second, the bill protects employee and prospective employee privacy. Before an FBI background check can be conducted, the employee or applicant for employment must grant an employer written consent to request the FBI database search. In addition, the criminal history reports received by the States will not be disseminated to employers. Instead, in States that have standards regulating private security guard employment, designated State agencies will simply be required to use the information provided by the FBI in applying their State standards. For those States that have no standards, the States will be instructed to inform requesting employers whether or not employees or applicants have been convicted of either: 1. a felony; 2. a violent misdemeanor within the past ten years; or 3. a crime of dishonesty within the past ten years. Thus, in these situations, only the fact that a particular conviction exists or not will be provided by States to employers, and the privacy of the records themselves will be maintained. All information provided to employers pursuant to this act must be provided to the employees or prospective employees. Furthermore, the bill establishes strong criminal penalties for those who might falsely certify they are authorized security firms or otherwise use information obtained pursuant to this act beyond the act's intended purposes. Third, the bill protects States' interests. The bill does not impose an unfunded mandate on the states. It reserves the right of States to charge reasonable fees to employers for their costs in administering this act. Moreover, if a State wishes to opt out of this statutory regime, it may do so at any time. This legislation is long overdue. It strikes the right balance between the need for States and employers to gain access to this critical information and the privacy rights of current and prospective security guards. We have worked with the FBI to expedite the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Most importantly, passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland defense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today it is my pleasure to congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn, MI for 75 years of distinguished service addressing the needs of children, seniors, and the disadvantaged throughout the Dearborn community and my home State of Michigan. As a member of Kiwanis International, the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn is part of a larger organization that holds community service at its core. Since its founding in 1915, Kiwanis International has united individuals to respond to the changing needs of their communities. Kiwanis groups promote awareness of vital issues such as child health and development, literacy, substance abuse, and senior care. Kiwanis Clubs nationwide take practical steps to respond to these concerns through volunteer service projects and fundraising. Today, the Kiwanis family includes 500,000 members in over 80 countries. Since 1928, the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn has taken an active role in performing community service. Through their annual ``Peanut Sale'' fundraiser, the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn has generated thousands of dollars each year for charity organizations. Recipients of the money raised at this benefit include Children's Hospital, the Salvation Army, the DeSales School for the Deaf, the Hemophilia Foundation, and the Special Olympics. This year, the club raised a record $54,000, a sum which has earned them recognition as a leader in fundraising initiatives. Furthermore, the club can be commended for donating all moneys raised to charity, due to the absence of administrative costs. The Kiwanis Club of Dearborn also produces ``Kiwani Talk,'' a television show that informs viewers of services available to the public. In the past 10 years, this program has aired 500 episodes relaying pertinent information to the community. The emergence of two additional clubs, the Outer Drive Kiwanis Club and the East Dearborn Kiwanis Club, is testament to the commitment of the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn to continued community service and the appeal of their message. I am confident that my Senate colleagues will join me in thanking the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn for their 75 years of service dedicated to improving the lives of many in the Dearborn community. The dedication to community service is an inspiring example of human kindness and selflessness. We wish them continued success as they work to make our communities better places to live.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last month the American Academy of Pediatrics published a survey reporting that most parents believe that their children would not touch a gun they found. Unfortunately, these beliefs are inconsistent with other studies of the way kids actually react around guns, including a July 2002 report by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. The American Academy of Pediatrics survey reported that an estimated one third of American homes with children contain at least one firearm and nearly half of all firearms in homes with children are not stored safely. According to the article, 87 percent of respondents predicted that their children would not handle guns they found, whereas 13 percent predicted that there was a chance their children would do so. Researchers grouped parents' responses into three categories. First, 46 percent of respondents said ``my children would not touch guns because they're too smart for that.'' Second, 35 percent said ``my children would not touch guns because I've told them not to.'' And third, 11 percent said, ``my children would probably pick up or play with guns they found, because that's just what kids do.'' However, the earlier David and Lucille Packard Foundation study demonstrated that children often do not behave as their parents might believe. In fact, according to the foundation's report, children and young people are actually likely to handle a gun if they find one. All parents want to ensure the safety of their children. One thing the Senate can do to help is pass common sense safe storage legislation for firearms. Under Senator Durbin's Child Access Prevention Act, adults who fail to lock up loaded firearms or an unloaded firearm with ammunition could be held liable if that weapon is taken by a child and used to kill or injure him or herself or another person. The bill would also increase the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and create a gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher organizations, local law enforcement and community organizations. I support this bill, urge my colleagues to support it, and hope the Senate will act on it during the 108th Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today is a very sad day for America and for those of us who served in the United States Senate with one of its most visionary and accomplished members, a great man, a great American, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who died yesterday. It stretches the mind just to think of all of the important positions that Pat Moynihan held, including Cabinet or sub-Cabinet posts under four Presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. He served as Ambassador to India in the 1970s and then as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He came to the United States Senate in 1977 already a scholar, author and public official of great distinction and renown. In the 24 years he spent here, he only greatly expanded his enormous reputation and body of work. Pat Moynihan was a Senator's Senator. Over the years, he earned the respect of every Member of the Senate--and we all learned a great deal from him. Pat Moynihan was a person who showed tremendous vision throughout his life. He showed foresight about the importance of a strong family and about the importance of strong communities in America. He raised the critical importance of these basic values and concerns about the deterioration of these family values, long before others. He showed great foresight about our Constitution. One of the highlights for me in my service in the Senate was joining Senator Moynihan and Senator Robert Byrd in fighting successfully against the line item veto as a violation of our Constitution. And, he showed great foresight about the world and the role of the United States in international affairs. His work at the United Nations and in the Senate, as a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as chairman of the Finance Committee was marked by his perceptive, analytical, and worldly view on trade, foreign policy, and intelligence matters. Long before others, Senator Moynihan was speaking of the economic and ultimately military weaknesses of the Soviet Union and predicting its collapse--at a time when most of the American intelligence community was overestimating its strength. It is virtually impossible to list all of Pat Moynihan's accomplishments in the U.S. Senate. Among the most lasting, however, will be his efforts on behalf of architectural excellence in the Nation's Capital. He was a crucial force behind the return to greatness of the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor between the U.S. Capitol and the White House, the restoration of Washington's beautiful, elegant, and historic Union Station, and the construction of the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building here on Capitol Hill. And Pat could pack a punch, wielding his sharp sense of humor as a devastating weapon as when, in 1981, when the plastic covering used to protect the workers on the then-new Hart Senate Office Building was removed. No fan of the lack of architectural merit of the Senate's newest office building, he suggested that the plastic be immediately put back. He commented, ``Even in a democracy, there are things it is as well the people do not know about their Government.'' The author or editor of eighteen books, Senator Moynihan was at the forefront of the national debate on issues ranging from welfare reform, to tax policy to international relations. His most recent book, written in 1998, ``Secrecy: The American Experience'' expands on the report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy of which he was the Chairman. This is a fascinating and provocative review of the history of the development of secrecy in the government since World War I and argument for an ``era of openness.'' At home in New York, in a State which is known for its rough and tumble politics, he demonstrated leadership again and again, exercising the power of intellect and the ability to rise above the fray. That has been a wonderful contribution not just to New York but to all of America. The ``Almanac of American Politics'' once noted ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan [was] the nation's best thinker among politicians since Lincoln and its best politician among thinkers since Jefferson.'' Pat made a huge contribution to this body and its reputation. I will never forgot him. His wife, Liz, his children, grandchildren and the entire Moynihan family are in our hearts and our prayers today. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memory will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all in the Senate family--as he was in life--to better serve the country that he loved so much.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget resolution. In my judgment, this budget, like the President's budget which it reflects, represents the wrong priorities. A close look reveals too many ill-advised cuts in too many critical areas in order to help pay for a tax cut which is too large, too inequitable, and which will worsen our fiscal situation without providing our economy the jump- start it needs. The proposed budget cuts in education are particularly troubling. While I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment I introduced that increased education funding by over $2 billion by proposing to close down two egregious tax haven loopholes, that increase doesn't come close to making up for the shortfalls. Other priorities are similarly underfunded. The transportation request is less than what was allotted in 2002 and 2003. This year Congress plans to reauthorize TEA-21, the highway reauthorization bill, yet the budget resolution as proposed would limit our ability to increase the program to meet our Nation's transportation needs. The budget would provide inadequate funding for State sewer and water programs, and would cut funding to the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Pprogram, which has helped fund more than 3,300 police officers in Michigan. The proposal provides no funding for the community access program, which improves health care coordination for the uninsured, or for extending unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have expired, even though the number of unemployed in our country has increased by about 40 percent since January 2001. While I am pleased that we were able to reduce the President's fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal, the tax cut package in the existing budget resolution is still too large, and likely will increase in conference committee with the President's party in charge of both Houses. In January 2001, the Office of Management and Budget was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we are back into a huge deficit ditch and will be for the foreseeable future. In fact, the President's proposed budget and tax cuts would lead to more than a trillion dollars in deficits over the next 5 years, including record deficits of over $300 billion this year and next. The right type of tax cuts could stimulate the economy by being effective in the short term and going to working families and small businesses that will spend the money now instead of mainly going to the wealthiest among us who don't need tax cuts. But tax cuts that drastically worsen our long-term fiscal situation, that won't help out in the short term, and that would require cuts to many other priorities are not what our economy needs. Surely, simple equity as well as economic stimulus needs suggest that if we are going to have tax cuts they should be broad-based tax cuts, providing, for instance, every working family of four with an immediate tax cut of $1,200. And we should also extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have expired and weren't previously extended, provide short-term incentives for businesses to invest immediately, and provide some assistance to our struggling States for education, homeland security, Medicaid, and highway and other infrastructure improvements. These measures would be better for our economy today, our fiscal situation in future years, and the many other challenges that lay ahead. They also would address today's problems today without passing the bills onto future generations. In addition, the Senate is asked by the majority to pass a budget without including any estimated costs of the war in Iraq and its aftermath, even though such estimates exist. Yesterday the President sent a $75 billion funding request regarding Iraq to Congress in the form of an emergency supplemental. That request is not included in the current 2004 budget resolution before us. There is no reason that the costs of the war and its aftermath after September 30, 2003, should be omitted. While there is no question that we will fully fund our troops, we are asked to approve massive tax cuts and huge deficits while totally ignoring the large additional expenditures which will be required by the war in Iraq. In my view, it is both reckless and irresponsible to intentionally keep those costs out of this budget resolution. This budget emphasizes the wrong priorities, burrows us deeper into the deficit ditch, continues our reliance on the Social Security surplus, and fails to provide the stimulus needed to improve our sputtering economy. I cannot support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while young men and women are putting their lives on the line for us, for our country, some corporations are stiffing our country, renouncing their citizenship, going through phony reincorporations in Bermuda. There are other tax haven countries, so- called inverting themselves in order to avoid taxes. This is one of the most egregious of all of the tax haven abuses that we know about--just a shell headquarters being opened, but all of the benefits of living in America continue. These corporations continue to use our roads, use our law enforcement, use our education system, and so forth. It is unfair to the taxpayers who are left holding the bag. It is unfair to U.S. competitors. It is something we ought to end. I hope we will end it today with the adoption of this amendment, particularly at a time when young American men and women are giving their all for us. It is time for Congress to get serious about closing tax haven loopholes. This amendment is aimed at closing two of those loopholes that would raise $4.7 billion over 10 years. It proposes that we take half of that $4.7 billion to reduce the deficit over 10 years and half to increase funding over 10 years for the following education initiatives: one, special education; two, after-school programs; and three, school construction and modernization grants. First, we need to stop corporate inversions, and do it in a way that will not permit those that started the inversion pretense to enjoy billions in future tax benefits that will continue to disadvantage their U.S. competitors. The companies targeted by this measure are those which have, in essence, pretended to move their headquarters to a tax haven when, in reality, their primary offices and production or service facilities remain right here in the United States. By opening shell headquarters in a tax haven, companies that got their start in this country, do most of their work here, and benefit from U.S. roads, banks, patents, computers, law enforcement, fair trade laws, its educated workforce, and much more, avoid contributing their fair share to pay for those benefits. A bill I have introduced along with Senators Reid, Durbin, and Kennedy is designed to stop this abusive practice. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed an almost identical bill and estimated that it would raise $4 billion over 10 years. Second, we need to close the Bermuda reinsurance tax loophole. Utilizing the U.S. tax code, a number of Bermuda-based property and casualty insurance companies are placing American-owned property and casualty insurance companies at a severe competitive disadvantage by ducking U.S. taxes that U.S. insurers are required to pay. Through reinsurance agreements with their subsidiaries, Bermuda insurance companies operating in the United States are using their U.S. subsidiaries to send U.S. insurance premiums out of this country and into Bermuda, where interest can be earned on the premiums tax-free. By sending the premiums offshore, the U.S. subsidiary of the Bermuda parent is able to reduce the amount of its income in the United states and, accordingly, reduce its U.S. taxes. Comparable U.S.-owned insurance companies cannot operate in the same way and, as a result, operate on an uneven playing field. Legislation has been developed to correct this inequity and level the playing field for U.S. property and casualty insurers. The Joint Committee on Taxation last year estimated the bill seeking to close this tax haven loophole would produce about $700 million over ten years. These are not the only tax haven abuses we need to address; there are others. We need to eliminate tax breaks for U.S. taxpayers that do business in uncooperative tax havens that fail, in the judgment of the U.S. government, to provide information needed in U.S. tax enforcement efforts. Since the 9/11 tragedy, the importance of financial transparency and cooperative information exchange among international law enforcement agencies has increased, not only to fight money laundering and other crimes, but also to understand financial transactions that my involve tax evasion or other illegal conduct. But a handful of tax haven jurisdictions continue to employ secrecy laws that impede U.S. tax enforcement or provide lackadaisical or ineffective responses to U.S. requests for information needed in criminal and civil tax matters. Legislation has been developed that would restrict the tax benefits that a U.S. taxpayer could claim from business transacted in one of these uncooperative jurisdictions. This legislation would produce not only new tax revenues, but also a powerful incentive for the targeted jurisdictions to reform their abusive policies. The funds that would be raised by such a provision are not included in the $4.7 billion at issue in this amendment due to our inability to obtain a timely revenue estimate, but this tax haven issue--and others like it--need to be addressed. We should use half of the $4.7 billion that would be raised by closing the inversion and Bermuda reinsurance loopholes to reduce the deficit and increase our commitment to education, which has been underfunded in this budget resolution. The budget resolution proposes funding that is almost $10 billion below the 2004 amount authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act, and includes funding levels that will reduce funding for after school centers and eliminate over 40 education programs, including programs relating to rural education, school counselors and teaching standards. It also would provide no funds for school modernization and construction grants and reduced funding for Teacher Quality State Grants, resulting in fewer teachers receiving the high-quality training they need. This amendment would increase education funding by over $2 billion over ten years, and proposes that the funds be evenly divided between special education programs, afterschool programs and school construction and modernization. The increased funding for special education will help to ensure that more students with disabilities get the public education they deserve, and that school districts will have additional funds to provide needed services without dipping even further into their general education budgets. School superintendents, school board members, teachers and parents in my state of Michigan and all across America have attested to the fact that the shortfall in federal support has placed a severe strain on local education budgets. It is clear that additional resources are necessary to help provide a quality education to all special needs children. Additional funds are also necessary to support after-school programs. The development of our nation's children does not start and end in our nation's classrooms. It is important to give all children safe, enriching environments in which they can spend their time when the school day ends. Juvenile crime hits its peak after children leave school and before their parents arrive home. Between 5 and 15 million children have nowhere to go after school. Research indicates that between the hours of 3 and 7 p.m., children are more likely to engage in at-risk behavior, including abusing drugs or alcohol or engaging in sexual activity, or become the victims of crime. 21st Century Community Learning Centers provide after school educational, recreational, cultural, health and social services to youth in many communities. The additional funds in this amendment will help to ensure that we do not leave these children behind when the school day ends. We also are faced with startling statistics about the state of America's public school facilities. Record enrollments and growing communities are causing severe overcrowding in many public schools. The average public school facility in America is over 40 years old. Approximately 46 percent of all public schools lack the electrical and communication wiring necessary to utilize today's computer systems and to prepare our children for today's technologically-based society. Recent surveys by the General Accounting Office and the National Council for Education Statistics, NCES, have placed cost estimates of school construction needs between $112 billion to $127 billion. Sixty to 70 percent of Michigan's schools reported having six or more insufficient technology elements. In this Congress and the last I supported grants and school bond tax provisions for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of school facilities. The additional funds this amendment provides will help to ensure that no student is denied access to the Internet because a school does not have the physical infrastructure to use computers or other technology. Support for this amendment indicates support for three things-- closing two egregious tax haven loopholes, increasing funding for education, and paying down the deficit. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be listed as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 372, which is at the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Hatch and I have offered, which the Senate has adopted, is a life-saving amendment. It will help to mend broken lives and shattered families that are living with the scourge of drug addiction and are struggling to rid themselves of this dreadful disease. Our sense of the Senate amendment supports $20 million in fiscal year 2004 for drug treatment programs that utilize a newly FDA approved substance called buprenorphine, which blocks the craving for heroin. The costs of substance abuse treatment are minimal when compared to the resulting savings. According to a national study of treatment programs that are funded by HHS's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, the average savings per individual in the year after treatment was approximately $9,200--more than three times the average cost of one treatment period. Another study by the RAND Corporation found that treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing societal costs of certain illegal drugs. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has estimated that 57 percent of those who need drug treatment do not receive it, despite its proven cost effectiveness over criminal justice approaches in reducing drug abuse and related social costs. Another ONDCP study, released in January of 2002, found that illegal drugs drain $160 billion a year from the American economy; and that the majority of these costs, $98.5 billion, stem from lost productivity due to drug- related illnesses and deaths, as well as incarcerations and work hours missed by victims of crime. The report also found that illegal drug use cost the health-care industry $12.9 billion in 1998. The $20 million assumed in our amendment pales in comparison to these sums, yet this modest funding will reap huge benefits in lowering illicit drug use, by providing funding for up to 60 new drug treatment projects, utilizing new FDA approved substances that block the craving of heroin. Again, I am pleased that the Senate has adopted our much-needed amendment. It has the potential of opening the door to tens of thousands of individuals who seek to rid themselves of their addiction to heroin, through the use of the anti-addiction medication called buprenorphine, which was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I oppose the level and distribution of funding in this amendment, it is no worse than what is in the current budget resolution, and it proposes a tax cut plan which is superior to the one before us. While it is a better alternative if it is substituted for the resolution before us, I would vote against it on final passage because it still underfunds too many of our nation's priorities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues Ms. Shikha Hamilton, a board member of the Million Mom March from my home State of Michigan. Ms. Hamilton visited my office last month with her fellow board members to report on their successes and to urge us to pass sensible gun safety legislation to stem the tide of gun violence that plagues many of our communities. Ms. Hamilton currently serves as the president of the MMM Chapter in Detroit. A rash of gun violence in Detroit over the last year has claimed the lives of 26 children; these incidents highlight the challenge gun violence poses for communities in protecting families. Ms. Hamilton is one person who has stepped up and met that challenge. She has helped form a coalition with other Detroit violence prevention groups, organized a huge march on Belle Isle, and helped create public service announcements to air on local radio stations. Ms. Hamilton is a leader in her community and I commend her for her work. As Detroit chapter president, Ms. Hamilton testified in support of a local ordinance prohibiting weapons in public buildings. It unanimously passed the Detroit City Council on November 13, 2002. Her chapter also persuaded the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News to close the ``newspaper loophole.'' The newspapers agreed to stop the placement of gun sales in the classified ads, one way criminals had been gaining access to guns without background checks. In addition to all of this, Ms. Hamilton is a full-time attorney, wife and the mother of a 4-year- old daughter. In the meeting with my staff, Ms. Hamilton and her MMM colleagues mentioned several pieces of gun safety legislation that are critical if we are to reduce gun violence. Among the most important is legislation closing the gun show loophole. In 1994, Congress passed the Brady Law, which requires federal firearm licensees to perform criminal background checks on gun buyers. However, a loophole in this law allows unlicensed private gun sellers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting a background check. The Gun Show Background Check Act would close this loophole in the law by extending the Brady law background check requirement to all sellers of firearms including those at gun shows. I cosponsored this bill because I believe it is critical that we do all we can to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists. Study after study has demonstrated that the Brady law has been successful in making it more difficult for criminals to gain access to firearms, and by closing the gun show loophole, Congress would again demonstrate its commitment to public safety. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Ms. Hamilton is doing her best to reduce gun violence in her community. We should do our best to pass sensible laws to make her job easier.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEVIN. May I make a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor, and every Member of the Senate who chooses to, who wants their name added, be allowed to do so, and even though it comes after the vote, that it appear that it occurred before the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. The men and women we have now placed in harm's way are carrying the prayers of every single Member of this body and every single man, woman, and child in this Nation. They are carrying on in the greatest traditions of the American military. We thank them.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to Senator Landrieu and 1 minute to Senator Stabenow.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.