Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of creating a new department for homeland security, and I was glad to be able to cosponsor the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee in July of this year. But this legislation, now, falls so short of the promise of that committee- passed bill, that I am compelled to vote no. The legislation the Senate will pass tonight has numerous unrelated and inappropriate special interest provisions, omits numerous related and appropriate homeland security provisions, and fails to address probably the most central question to our security the coordination and sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI. The homeland security bill that we are debating today is a dramatic departure from the bipartisan legislation that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The new bill now has numerous provisions that no one had seen until the Thompson amendment was presented to the Senate late last week, and too many of the provisions have less to do with homeland security and more to do with the access of special interests. One of these provisions provides liability protection for pharmaceutical companies that make a mercury-based vaccine preservative that may cause autism in children. Another provision guts the Wellstone amendment, which would prohibit Federal agencies from contracting with corporations that have moved offshore to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes--taxes that are used for important security agencies such as the FBI, Coast Guard, Customs Service, the INS, and the Border Patrol. Another provision provides an earmark to Texas A&M University for research. At the same time the Thompson amendment added weakening and special interest provisions like these, it deleted important provisions that would enhance our homeland security--including a grant program for additional firefighters, a program to improve the security and safety for the Nation's railroads, and a program to improve information flow amongst key Federal and State agencies with responsibility for homeland security. The bill completely removes key areas that we had come to bipartisan agreement on at the committee level such as important language relative to foreign intelligence analysis and the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Finally, it hands the President a blank check with regard to so- called reforms of the civil service. The over-reaching by the Republicans to include special interest provisions and to exclude strong bipartisan provisions is nothing less than shocking. The exclusion of strong bipartisan provisions addressing key issues with respect to homeland security is nothing less than dangerous to our security. Let's back up and look how we got to where we are today. Senator Lieberman initiated legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security last year shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. We had hearings on the proposal and the first committee markup, and at that time, President Bush opposed the creation of a new Department. As a result, the vote to report the bill we reported from Governmental Affairs was along party lines, with all of the Democrats, including myself, voting for it and the Republicans voting against it. In the spring, President Bush changed his mind and put forth his own proposal for a new department. We in the Governmental Affairs Committee then worked on a compromise committee amendment, merging most of what the President wanted with the committee-passed bill. We reported that to the floor at the end of July. A great deal of time went into crafting that bill. Chairman Lieberman held 18 hearings on various issues dealing with homeland security. We had a two day mark-up; we considered dozens of amendments; and we passed the bill out of the Governmental Affairs Committee by a 12-5 vote. We ultimately came up with what I believe was a good bill. However, the bill before us today takes some major step backwards. For one, this bill muddles the issue of responsibility for foreign intelligence analysis at precisely the time we should be clarifying it. The intelligence issues we face are some of the most important issues in this reorganization. Many of us on the Intelligence Committee have been taking a hard look at possible intelligence failures before 9/11. Whether or not these failures, if they hadn't occurred, could have avoided 9/11 could be the subject of endless speculation, and that is not the point. The point is, we need to do a better job of coordinating our intelligence. We need to give those who do coordinate our intelligence the resources that they need, and we need to better define their roles and responsibilities. The Governmental Affairs Committee passed bill contains language I offered with respect to the new Department's role in gathering and analyzing intelligence on possible terrorist attacks in the United States. My language clarified the intelligence gathering functions and assigned responsibility. The language in the Thompson amendment leaves the intelligence community without clearly defined roles and creates the possibility for unnecessary and costly duplication of efforts. We cannot afford that kind of situation post 9/ 11. Let me explain. Right now we have an office at the CIA called the Counter Terrorist Center or CTC, where all information, regardless of source, about international terrorism is sent and analyzed. Whether it is obtained overseas or in the U.S., the CTC is the central place for counter terrorism intelligence. The CTC, which has 250 analysts, receives 10,000 incoming intelligence reports a month about international terrorism from the State Department, Customs, local law enforcement, FBI, INS, and a range of other sources. Representatives from the FBI, Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice and other agencies that are involved in collecting and receiving information about international terrorism, work at the CTC with CIA analysts. One of the questions we faced in the Governmental Affairs Committee was how the responsibilities of the new Department in terms of intelligence gathering and analysis related to the ongoing role of the CTC. My language in the Governmental Affairs passed bill kept the principal responsibility for analyzing information about international terrorism at the CTC. Under my language, the CTC would receive all foreign intelligence, regardless of source, and would be primarily responsible for its analysis. As defined by the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 401(a), ``foreign intelligence'' is ``information relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.'' My language makes it clear that the principal responsibility for collecting and analyzing information about international terrorism would be at the CTC. Under the Committee-passed bill the new Department of Homeland Security would have a directorate of intelligence that would be responsible for the receipt and analysis of all information relating to acts of terrorism in the United States including the foreign intelligence analyses from the CTC, as well as information and analyses relating to terrorist activities of U.S. persons or organizations. The new directorate would be responsible for linking all that information and analyses to an assessment of vulnerabilities to acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. Under the Governmental Affairs Committee bill, the new Department would, therefore, not only be responsible for the domestic terrorism intelligence analyses, but it would fuse foreign intelligence analyses with the domestic intelligence analyses and obtain an assessment of vulnerabilities to terrorism existing in the U.S. In other words, the new Department would, as many have used the phrase, ``connect the dots''--intelligence analyses, foreign and domestic, and U.S. vulnerabilities. By maintaining the role of the CTC in international intelligence and adding the role of the new Department in the overall analytical responsibility with respect to terrorism in the United States, we would avoid duplication and redundancy. The Thompson amendment includes language that would appear to duplicate the CTC at the new Department, and I cannot support that. Duplicating the responsibility of analysis of foreign intelligence would only waste valuable and limited resources and undermine our objective of getting the best counter terrorism intelligence we can get. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of experienced and trained analysts ``tends to be in short supply.'' We just don't have the resources or the people to duplicate analyses of foreign intelligence. It is important not to duplicate the CTC's capability, but to strengthen it and keep the primary responsibility for the analysis of information about international terrorism, from wherever obtained, in one place. Another reason that I am voting against this bill is because the Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise with respect to the Freedom of Information Act, a compromise that the administration supported at the Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up, is not in this bill. One of the primary functions of the new Department will be to safeguard the Nation's infrastructure, much of which is run by private companies. The Department will need to work in partnership with private companies to ensure that our critical infrastructure is secure. To do so, the homeland security legislation asks companies to voluntarily provide the new Department with information about their own vulnerabilities, the hope being that one company's problems or solutions to its problems will help other companies with similar problems. Some companies expressed concern that current law did not adequately protect the confidential business information that they may be asked to provide to the new Department from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. They argued that without a specific statutory exemption they would be less likely to voluntarily submit information to the new Department about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. We crafted a compromise to put into statute important protections established in case law. The resulting compromise would protect from public disclosure any record furnished voluntarily and submitted to the new Department that: First, pertains to the vulnerability of and threats to critical infrastructure, such as attacks, response and recovery efforts; Second, the provider would not customarily make available to the public; Third, are designated and certified by the provider as confidential and not customarily made available to the public. The Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise made clear that records that an agency obtains independently of the Department are not subject to the protections I just enumerated. Thus, if the records currently are subject to disclosure by another agency, they would remain available under FOIA even if a private company submits the same information to the new Department. The language also allowed the provider of voluntarily submitted information to change a designation and certification and to make the record subject to disclosure under FOIA. The language required that the new Department develop procedures for the receipt, designation, marking, certification, care and storage of voluntarily provided information as well as the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality of the voluntarily provided records. The Bennett-Levin-Leahy compromise is not included in the Thompson amendment. Instead, the bill cuts back on FOIA access by the public by expanding the type of information that the new department can keep from the public. The language in this bill could result in the issuance of rules by the new Department based on information not included in the rule making record. It could prevent the Federal Government from using critical infrastructure information in a civil suit seeking to protect public safety. Finally, the language in the Thompson amendment could result in a criminal penalty against a whistle blower who leaks the kind of information presented to the new Department on critical infrastructure. The principles of open government and the public's right-to-know are cornerstones upon which our country was built. With this bill, we are sacrificing them in the name of protecting them. The Bennett-Levin- Leahy compromise would have balanced the need between openness and security to protect these principles. I will also be voting against this bill because of the civil service provisions that President Bush is calling ``flexibility'' but that I consider an unnecessary blank check. There are really two issues here, one concerns collective bargaining, and the other concerns the civil service in general. Under existing law, the President can issue an executive order excluding any agency or subdivision of an agency from collective bargaining if it is involved in a matter of ``national security.'' For example, in January of this year, the President issued an executive order which took collective bargaining rights away from hundreds of Department of Justice employees, many of them clerical workers involved in civil issues under the label of ``national security.'' But even without the national security exception, under current law, in an emergency, the new Department could waive collective bargaining rights, because under 5 U.S.C. 7106, ``nothing, in the chapter establishing collective bargaining rights, shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency . . . to take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the agency mission during emergencies.'' In addition, current law prohibits federal employees from striking under any circumstances. The Thompson bill would allow the President to waive collective bargaining rights, whether or not there is an emergency, as long as he gives 10 days notice and sends a written explanation to Congress. This provision does not provide a standard under which the President's authority is to be exercised. So in the most extreme example, under this provision, the President could remove the collective bargaining rights of every single employee who was transferred into the new Department. That is unacceptable. What we tried to do in the Governmental Affairs Committee bill was to allow workers with collective bargaining rights transferred into the new Department to maintain those rights if their job descriptions did not change. Given the President's authority to act in an emergency under current law, I believe that protected our national security without unnecessarily trampling on rights of employees. The Thompson amendment also allows the Secretary of the new Department to alter civil service rules. If the Secretary does so, then the employee unions would have 30 days to review the changes and make recommendations to the Secretary. If the Secretary doesn't agree with those suggestions, he or she could declare an impasse and send the dispute to federal mediators. After another 30 days, the Secretary could go ahead with the changes, regardless of what the mediator suggests. The President argues that this process gives the unions a say in any changes, but the reality is that the unions have no real substantive remedy to the Secretary's proposed changes. No matter how much the employees and unions oppose the new rules, how much they fight against them, in the end, the Secretary has unilateral power to issue the rules under the Thompson amendment. I supported creating a Department of Homeland Security from the beginning--like many of my Democratic colleagues well before the President came on board. It's disheartening that the President and the Republican leadership couldn't accept the bipartisan bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee and work with that to develop a bill without the major flaws described above. It's also distressing indeed that the President and the Republican leadership chose to use the Homeland Security Department legislation as a vehicle for unrelated special interest legislation while leaving behind a number of very important security-related provisions. I would have been happy to stay here to work out the differences in this legislation and develop the strongest legislation possible. But with this vote, now, that is an impossibility. So, I hope in the next Congress to work with my colleagues who share my views on some of these provisions to make some needed changes to this legislation. Let me add one more thing about how far astray we have gone with this legislation. While the President has been holding out on passage of this legislation in order to get the authority to waive collective bargaining rights for employees at the new Department, the key agencies in the Federal Government that are at the front lines of protecting our homeland have gone underfunded in this fiscal year. According to the House Appropriations Committee Staff: while we have authorized $38 billion for homeland defense, we have actually appropriated only $640 million to the new Department and other agencies; while we have authorized an additional 200 immigration inspectors and 200 immigration investigators, to date we have appropriated no money for these positions; and while we have authorized $520 million for hospital emergency rooms, we have only appropriated $135 million. The Republican leadership in the House has failed to send us the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2003 that would increase funding for the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, the FBI, the CIA--all of the agencies we need to have additional resources to stave off or adequately respond to a terrorist attack. That is the unfortunate final chapter to this story. By not taking up the appropriations bills for next year, we are delaying the delivery of desperately needed dollars to the very agencies charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks. The misdirection of priorities involved is harrowing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the confirmation of Dennis Shedd to be a United States Judge for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Shedd's record as a judge on the United States District Court raises a number of concerns about both his approach on the bench and his commitment to equal justice--leading me to the conclusion that he should not be promoted to the second highest court in the land. Of particular concern to me are Judge Shedd's extreme view on the limits of Congressional authority and his record of hostility to plaintiffs in civil rights and employment discrimination cases. This combination is extremely dangerous given the critical role that Congress plays in passing laws to ensure that Constitutional protections are afforded to all Americans. Further, I am troubled by what appears to be a lack of thorough consideration in Judge Shedd's approach. This is particularly unsettling given the significant Constitutional issues that have been at stake in his courtroom. With respect to Judge Shedd's view of the Constitutional role of the Congress, two cases stand out, Condon v. Reno and Crosby v. South Carolina. I voted for, and Congress enacted, the Drivers Privacy Protection Act in 1994 to limit the availability of personal information--such as photographs, social security numbers, addresses and telephone numbers, and even some medical information--contained in motor vehicle records. In Condon v. Reno, the state of South Carolina challenged the law, claiming that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the state's rights because it restricted South Carolina from setting its own standards for releasing State motor vehicle records. In Condon v. Reno, Judge Shedd ruled that the law was unconstitutional and in the process endorsed a view that--if permitted to stand--would have severely limited Congress ability to legislate under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Judge Shedd's decision endorsed a view of congressional authority so far out of the mainstream that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn him in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Judge Shedd's decision in Crosby v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control also deeply troubles me. In Crosby, Judge Shedd adopted a magistrate's recommendation granting defendant's summary judgement--agreeing with the magistrate that the 11th Amendment doctrine of state sovereign immunity should prevent the plaintiff from suing the state for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act because he believed that Act was an improper exercise of Congress's enforcement power under the 14th amendment. Despite the obvious and profound implications of this decision for Congress's authority, Judge Shedd offered virtually no analysis to support his decision. This is despite the absence of directly controlling precedent and the presence of a split among other Federal district courts on the issue. Acts of Congress are entitled to a presumption of Constitutionality. Ruling to overturn a Federal law should not be taken lightly. In a case of this import, Judge Shedd's failure to articulate a rationale for his decision is deeply disturbing. The fact that other judges may have reached the same conclusion as Judge Shedd is not the point here. Parties before the court on an issues of this magnitude are entitled to a judge's reasoning. Judge Shedd offered none. The Crosby decision is not the only example of Judge Shedd's tendency to accept magistrate recommendations with little or no comment on important matters. In South Carolina, all cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are automatically referred to magistrates for pretrial matters. In important employment discrimination cases, Judge Shedd has often adopted magistrates' recommendations in favor of summary judgement. And he has done so without comment in many instances where it appears to me that comment was warranted. In fact, Judge Shedd has done so in cases where a party has raised an objection to one of the magistrate's recommendations and he was required to conduct a de novo review. In a number of these cases, Judge Shedd's rulings do not address the objections at all. Instead, his decisions simply adopt the magistrate's recommendations and pay lip service to his obligation by including a statement that he has conducted the required de novo review. Given the concerns I have about this approach in the Crosby case, this practice deeply concerns me. Mr. President, nothing is more important for a judge than a commitment to equal justice. A review of Judge Shedd's record also raises the question whether this ideal is being upheld. In a number of civil rights cases, Judge Shedd appears to have intervened in a manner that has tilted toward defendants. He has granted summary judgement for defendants on grounds not even raised by the defendants. He has ordered a defendant to file a motion to dismiss a case and later granted the motion. And Judge Shedd even granted summary judgment against a petitioner even though it appears that the defendant never filed a motion for summary judgement. These decisions raise serious questions about whether plaintiffs are getting a fair hearing in Judge Shedd's courtroom. I was particularly struck by the Judge's answer to a question from Senator Edwards in his Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year. Senator Edwards asked Judge Shedd whether he had ever granted relief to a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. Judge Shedd could not recall a single instance where a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination was granted relief in his courtroom. Judge Shedd's inability to recall such a case is actually not surprising as a review of his published opinions failed to reveal even one such instance. Eleven years on the bench and not one of his published opinions reflects a favorable ruling for an employee in a discrimination case. Mr. President, I'm afraid Judge Shedd's record simply does not support his promotion to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will miss my friend and colleague Robert Torricelli, the senior Senator from the State of New Jersey when he leaves the Senate at the end of the 107th Congress. Bob Torricelli first served from 1982-1996 in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1996, he joined us in the U.S. Senate, and since getting here, has been a committed advocate for the people of New Jersey. He has worked tirelessly to protect New Jersey's natural resources, to improve air quality, and to protect drinking water. He has also worked hard to provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors, and make college more affordable for parents and students alike. I have worked with Senator Torricelli in his tireless and ongoing efforts to close the gun show loophole and to pass commonsense gun safety legislation. That is a battle that I want to assure him many of us that he leaves behind in the Senate will continue to wage. Bob Torricelli served as an effective chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and has earned a reputation as one of the most eloquent orators in the U.S. Senate. His books, ``In Our Own Words: Extraordinary Speeches of the American Century'' and ``Quotations for Public Speakers: A Historical, Literary, and Political Anthology'' have become valuable resources for all of his colleagues in public life. I know my colleagues will join me in thanking Senator Robert Torricelli for his years of service in the Congress and wish him the best. Jesse Helms Mr. President, I recognize the service of Jesse Helms. Before coming to the Senate, Jesse Helms served his country in the U.S. Navy during World War II. He was a Senate staffer, broadcast executive, radio personality, and banking executive. Senator Helms, throughout his career, has been a tireless voice for his conservative beliefs. Whether one agrees with Senator Helms' views or not, no one can deny the imprint he has made on the deliberations and actions of the United States Senate. Jesse Helms has always had the knack for carefully crafting legislative language which would put his supporters and opponents clearly on the record on the most difficult issues of conscience. In his capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms was a powerful force in reorganizing the Department of State. In the United States Senate we are called upon to work with colleagues of many differing points of view. While a fierce battler for his conservative convictions, Jesse Helms was often willing to reach across party lines to work with Democrats on issues like adoption and increased funding for AIDS research. While Jesse Helms and I have frequently disagreed, I respect the straight forwardness which he brought to the public policy debate. And, Jesse Helms was always a gracious gentleman. As this Congress comes to an end, I know that I am joined by my Senate colleagues in wishing Jesse Helms and his wife, Dorothy , and their three children, the very best in the years ahead. Phil Gramm Mr. President, at the end of this session of Congress, Senator Phil Gramm, the senior Senator from Texas will leave the Senate. For 18 years, Senator Gramm has been a leader among the Republicans and a strong voice in the Senate. Phil Gramm is a hard worker and effective advocate. Before coming to the Senate, Senator Gramm was an economics professor at Texas A&M University and member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1978 until 1984. After being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, Senator Gramm quickly became recognized as one of its most articulate members. As a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Finance Committee, and the Budget Committee, he has applied his boundless energies and extensive knowledge of the Senate rules and precedents to his efforts to reduce federal taxes. While Phil Gramm and I disagree on many issues, I deeply respect his willingness to stand up and fight for his convictions and the good humor with which he approaches those battles. For example, on the issue of federal prisoner industries reform, Senator Gramm and I have locked horns on several occasions, but he has always been a worthy and agreeable adversary. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in wishing him every success as the vice chairman of UBS Warburg and in wishing our best to Wendy, his wife, and their two children. Fred Thompson Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Fred Thompson. Senator Thompson joined the U.S. Senate in 1994 after a successful career in law and even some starring roles on the silver screen. But he was no stranger to this body, even then, having previously served as Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 and 1974 at the age of 30. Once he joined as a Senator, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee seeking to make our government more sensible, more responsive, and more cost effective. In 1997, he became the Chairman of the Committee and has served in that capacity during the 105th, 106th and 107th Congresses. Over the years, Senator Thompson helped oversee some dramatic investigations, including the campaign finance investigation in the 105th Congress and the Enron investigation this past year. He also worked on many less well known issues, including one close to my heart the effort to improve the way the Federal Government issues regulations. For several Congresses, Senator Thompson and I teamed together on regulatory reform issues, including a major regulatory reform bill. This legislation would have required federal agencies to consider cost- benefit analysis when issuing major regulations and state publicly whether the agency found that the benefits of a regulation justified the costs. If they did not, then the agency would have to explain why it was issuing the regulation despite that finding. We also required federal agencies to conduct risk assessments where appropriate. We had a heck of a battle on that legislation, and in the end we failed to pass it. But the fight was worth it; I believe we were right; and it was great to have Senator Thompson fighting with me at my side to bring common sense to our regulatory process. During his years at the Senate, Senator Thompson has made his mark as a legislator by supporting bipartisan efforts to enact reforms in the areas of campaign finance, sensible government regulation, and corporate accountability. While he will no longer be ``In the Line of Fire,'' Senator Thompson's legacy in the Senate will ``Die Hard.'' I hope his future roles will be as lively as those he played here for the last eight years. It is a pleasure to join all of my colleagues today in honoring and thanking him for his years of public service to his country. Jesse Helms

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring the attention of my colleagues to a report released in October by the Violence Policy Center, VPC, entitled Credit Card Armies--Firearms and Training for Terror in the United States. This report analyzes the ease with which members of terrorist organizations and criminals gain access to powerful firearms and ammunition. According to the VPC report, terrorist groups with little more than a credit card and a driver's license, can easily obtain military grade firepower, including 50 caliber sniper rifles, assault weapons, and extraordinarily powerful ammunition. In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for information on individuals detained. However, according to a New York Times article, the Department of Justice ordered the FBI to stop using NICS records for investigating suspected terrorists even after the FBI found that at least two individuals detained in relation to the terrorist investigation had been cleared to buy firearms. Further evidence gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and reported by the New York Times determined that 34 firearms used in crimes had at some point been purchased by an individual on the same list of people detained after 9/ 11. The VPC report provides several examples of terrorist groups, from al-Qaida to the Irish Republican Army, using our loopholes in our gun laws to purchase 50 caliber sniper rifles and other military style firearms. We need to pass the Schumer-Kennedy Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act and also Senator Reed's ``Gun Show Background Check Act. These bills would assist law enforcement in identifying prohibited gun buyers and recognizing patterns of illegal purchases and misuse. In January 2001, regulations issued by the Department of Justice directed the FBI to retain NICS information for a 90-day period. This 90-day period allows local law enforcement and the FBI to check NICS for illegal gun sales to criminals, terrorists and other prohibited buyers, identify purchasers using fake identification, and screen for gun dealers misusing the system. However, in June 2001, the Attorney General proposed reducing the length of time that law enforcement agencies can retain NICS data to 24 hours. This is simply an insufficient amount of time for law enforcement to review the NICS database. The Attorney General's action concerns me greatly. I was pleased to cosponsor the Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act introduced by Senators Kennedy and Schumer. This legislation would codify the 90-day period for law enforcement to retain and review NICS data. The need for this legislation was highlighted late last year when the Attorney General denied the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to the NICS database to review for gun sales to individuals they had detained in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks and refused to take a position on an amendment which would authorize that access. Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act, which is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, would extend the Brady Bill background check requirement to all sellers of firearms at gun shows. I cosponsored it because it is vital that we do all we can to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists. I urge my colleagues to consider these important pieces of gun safety legislation not only to protect our children from gun accidents and criminal use, but also to limit easy access to dangerous weapons by people who would seek to threaten our Nation's security.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. That was not the question. The question is, Of the amendments reviewed, how many would not be strictly germane and therefore would fall?

Mr. LEVIN. The list I have, they all appear, most appear to be relevant amendments, but because of the technical rules, many of these would not be allowed apparently; many would be not allowed if they are not strictly germane. How many of these amendments are nongermane in the eyes of the Parliamentarian?

Mr. LEVIN. Homeland security.

Mr. LEVIN. Pardon?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: A large number of amendments have been filed which, on their face, appear to be relevant to this bill. If cloture is invoked, not only nongermane but even relevant amendments would be precluded from being offered. My parliamentary inquiry is this: How many of the amendments which have been filed and reviewed by the Parliamentarian would fall as being nongermane?

Mr. LEVIN. Ten of these amendments could not be offered after the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the members of the Hartford Memorial Baptist Church for 85 years of dedication and service to the Detroit community. Since 1917, Hartford Memorial Baptist Church has established an environment of strength within the parish walls as well as throughout the surrounding community. Through commitment to social change, they welcomed the nonconformist insights of W.E.B. DuBois and Paul Robeson during the Civil Rights Movement and continue to make significant contributions to social development through extensive community outreach programs. The establishment of the Hartford Agape House is one of their current initiatives dedicated toward an urban mission that provides needed social services to the local community. Widely respected among the Michigan faith-based organizations, their exemplary programs take on the issues of poverty through hunger initiatives and free clothing; medical necessities through a public health consortium, Alcoholics Anonymous, and AIDS awareness; as well as educational assistance that provides both college preparation and scholarship programs. I take great pride in recognizing the efforts of the Hartford Memorial Baptist Church throughout their 85-year history in the Detroit community. Their ministry attends to the entire person: mind, body and soul. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting their contributions to society and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Annual Uniform Crime Report for 2001, 15,980 people were murdered last year; 8,719 of the 15,980 deaths were caused by a firearm, and of those murders, 6,790 were caused by a handgun. Six hundred and seventy-two murders occurred in my home State of Michigan. These numbers are staggering. There are several commonsense bills in the Senate that would reduce gun violence and gun crime, and I am disappointed that it appears that the 107th Congress will come to a close without the enactment of meaningful gun safety legislation. On April 24, 2001, Senator Reed introduced the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would close a loophole in the law which allows unlicensed private gun dealers to sell guns without performing a National Instant Criminal Background System check. I cosponsored that bill because I believe it would be an important tool to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and other people prohibited from owning a firearm. I am also a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's Children's Access Prevention Act. Under this bill, adults who fail to lock up a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm with ammunition would be held liable if the weapon is taken by a child and used to kill or injure themselves or another person. The bill also increases the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and creates a gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher organizations, local law enforcement and community organizations. This bill is similar to a bill President Bush signed into law during his tenure as the Governor of Texas. More recently, I cosponsored Senator Kohl's Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act, or BLAST Act, which would require licensed firearms manufacturers to test fire firearms, and prepare ballistics images of the fired bullets and casings of new firearms. Expanding the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network to include these ballistics images would increase the crime gun tracing capabilities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. ATF agents could quickly identify firearms by using the ballistics images of cartridge casings and bullets recovered at crime scenes, even when criminals obliterate the serial number. In recent months, we have seen snipers with an assault rifle kill people around the country and a student at the University of Arizona go to his school and kill three of his teachers and himself. These events represent only a few of the thousands of murders that have already occurred this year. These brutal killing sprees were given national media attention, and hopefully will generate legislative action. While there is little time left in the 107th Congress to address these issues, it is critical that we press for consideration of these issues early in 108th Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? Is it the Senator's understanding that that extension is simply an extension or part of a larger package which has many other features to it?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my problem with this unanimous consent request relates to the limitation on amendments. There have been four amendments specified. I have been trying for weeks and months, in some cases years, and other Members of this body have also been attempting to get other amendments that relate to the Finance Committee's work before this body for a vote. The Senator from Connecticut talks about the needy. Clearly, he is right. There are needy people in this country. One of the neediest groups is the people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We have been trying for months to get an extension of unemployment compensation before this body for a vote. In prior recessions, there have been extensions of unemployment of 29 weeks in 1974, 26 weeks in 1981, 33 weeks in 1990, and 26 weeks in 2002. We need an extension of unemployment benefits. We have a large number of people--900,000 workers--who have exhausted all of their additional weeks of Federal unemployment insurance between May and July of 2002. This number is going to grow to 2.2 million before the end of the year. We have lost 2 million private sector jobs in this country since January of 2001--an actual decline in private sector jobs for the first time in 50 years. We have economic problems. We have suffering. We want to extend unemployment benefits. Yet I am precluded--as have our other colleagues who have been working diligently on this issue--from offering an amendment to this bill to extend unemployment benefits. It is that limitation, that restriction, that prohibition in the unanimous consent proposal that I have a problem with. I think it is important that those who are fighting for an extension of unemployment compensation have this opportunity on this bill because this is a bill which can pass and offer immediate and critical help to our people. That is the problem I have with the unanimous consent request. In addition to the extension of unemployment benefits, I ask if the author of this unanimous consent request would consider modifying his request to allow three amendments I have been trying to get considered by this body. One is the extension of unemployment compensation which many people have been attempting for months to have considered by this body. I would like to see that locked in and guaranteed for consideration on this bill. This bill can pass. No. 1. No. 2, an amendment relevant to stock options which was blocked. Senator McCain was blocked from offering it a number of months ago. The amendment would simply require the Financial Accounting Standards Board to consider the issue of stock options within a year and report back. The third is the Securities and Exchange Commission administrative enforcement amendment. We circulated those amendments. They are clearly within the jurisdiction of this committee. The only way we are going to get these amendments considered is if they are part of a unanimous consent request such as this. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania whether he would consider amending his unanimous consent request to allow three additional amendments. That is the only problem I have with his unanimous consent request--it precludes amendments from being offered which are within the jurisdiction of this committee, which are critically important to this country, and which won't be considered unless we can make them part of a unanimous consent request. That is my question to the sponsor of the unanimous consent.

Mr. LEVIN. Happily, the Senator's argument against it on the third amendment helps me on the second amendment because it is clearly in the jurisdiction----

Mr. LEVIN. On the stock option, there has even been a hearing in the Finance Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. There is a requirement that they report back in a year. But the Senator is correct, on the substance of the issue, it is neutral. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania might also find that some of the people who previously opposed the effort in the area of stock options may not object to having the Financial Accounting Standards Board review this matter and report back in a year, for the very reason that the Senator from Maryland raises, which is that it is substantively neutral. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, many have said they want the next Congress to work on tax reform. Any tax reform effort we undertake, however, needs to address the grave warning recently provided by IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti about the need for immediate steps to avert a breakdown in federal tax enforcement. Mr. Rossotti has just completed 5 years of work to restore confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of the IRS. He left the administration last week after submitting a report to the IRS Oversight Board summarizing his efforts and the current state of the IRS. His overall conclusion was that, while the IRS made significant progress over the last 5 years in revamping its procedures and improving interactions with average taxpayers, the IRS is ``losing the war'' on stopping tax cheats. Mr. Rossotti wrote that while the size and the complexity of the Tax Code have continued to increase, IRS enforcement resources have continue to diminish. He described the IRS as ``outnumbered'' and facing a huge and growing gap ``between the number of taxpayers whom the IRS knows are not filing, not reporting or not paying what they owe, and our capacity to require them to comply.'' Using specific facts and figures, he provides data supporting the shocking statistic that four out of five U.S. tax cheats will likely escape detection and correction action due to the IRS' limited resources to enforce the tax laws. Mr. Rossotti also summarized what is happening among tax professionals to enable so-called sophisticated taxpayers to escape paying their fair share, and what the likely consequence is for honest taxpayers left footing the bill. Here is what he said: Recognizing the IRS' diminished capacity, promoters and some tax professionals are selling a wide range of tax schemes and devices designed to improperly reduce taxes to taxpayers based on the simple premise that they can get away with it. When this perception becomes increasingly widespread, the essential pillar or our tax system is lost-- namely, the belief of honest taxpayers that if someone does not pay what he or she owes, then the IRS will do something about it. Mr. Rossotti's full analysis appears in the report he filed with the IRS Oversight Board, and I ask unanimous consent for the complete text of that report to appear in the record following my remarks.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wish to express my sincerest congratulations to Gloria R. Bourdon of Michigan who has recently been recognized by the American Lung Association of Michigan-Genessee Valley Region as the 2002 Individual Health Advocate of the Year. The American Lung Association of Michigan-Genesee Valley Region awards this honor to an individual who has served as board member on a health association or participated in a health related activity for at least 5 years. Recipients must contribute to the community's health, education, and general well-being. The individual must have been involved in promoting health care research, contributing to articles on health care, and involved in lung health care advocacy. Gloria Bourdon has not only met these criteria but has far exceeded them; for this she is a worthy recipient of this prestigious award. Gloria Bourdon's promotion of children's health issues began in 1970 as a teacher in Pinconning and Linden Areas Schools, where she taught students to lead healthy lifestyles. As the Director of Health, Safety and Nutrition Services for the Genesee Intermediate School District, Gloria is now responsible for the health and safety of the children in 55 public schools, public academies, and private schools. She is also an active member of the community. She supports many coalitions including Priority Children, Childhood Asthma Task Force, and the Genesee County Curriculum Council. Her outstanding work and dedication have been recognized by various organizations. Most recently, Gloria received the Genesee County Child Advocacy Award, the Michigan Association of School Board's Health and Safety Award, and the Rainmaker Award from HealthPlus. Gloria's dedication to children's health is evident in her writing and fundraising efforts. In 1998, she authored a Health Action Team Manual for Substance Abuse Education, Physical Activity, Nutrition Education, and Safe and Drug Free School Zones. She has assisted the American Lung Association in efforts regarding asthma, tobacco and air- quality awareness. Gloria also encourages her nursing and teaching staff to support the Association's goals. I join the American Lung Association of Michigan-Genesee Valley Region in congratulating Gloria on her great accomplishments in promoting the health and safety of the children in Genesee County and surrounding areas. I know that my colleagues in the Senate will support me in thanking Gloria Bourdon for her efforts and wishing her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wish to express my heartfelt congratulations to the Mott Children's Health Center (MCHC), in Flint, MI, which has been selected by the American Lung Association of Michigan-Genesee Valley Region as the 2002 Corporate Health Advocate of the Year. The American Health and Lung Association of Michigan-Genesee Valley Region grants this prestigious award to an organization that aspires to restrict or ban smoking, offers employee programs for smoking cessation, or exhibits respect and sensitivity to those suffering with lung disease. Winners must demonstrate financial support to local non- profit agencies as well as encourage employees to sit on local boards of directors for community based non-profit organizations. Recipients also need to display a commitment to improving the quality of life of Genesee Valley's residents. MCHC has not only met but far surpassed the American Health and Lung Association's criteria and is a worthy recipient of this award. Founded in 1939 by Charles Stuart Mott, MCHC's mission is to better the lives of Genesee County's at-risk youth through health services and community advocacy. As a health service provider, MCHC offers the Genesee County community both emotional and physical pediatric health services, educates families on health-related issues, and supports local schools and neighborhoods with on-site health care. In order to inform community decision makers on issues related to Genesee County's children's health needs, MCHC sponsors events on matters affecting children's health, supports various state and local children's advocacy organizations, and develops educational materials on children's issues. In its 63-year history, MCHC has expanded to become a principal in child health advocacy in the Genesee Valley community and throughout Michigan. MCHC is a recognized leader in the battle against childhood asthma, an illness that affects 15 percent of Genesee County's children. As part of the Childhood Asthma Task Force, (CATF), MCHC provides staff and other resources, including a home to CATF's three Mini Asthma Resource Centers. MCHC nurses, who dedicate themselves to educating families about asthma and available treatments, staff these CATF centers. Additionally, in its continuing effort to highlight children's respiratory health issues, last year MCHC sponsored the 29th Annual Tuuri Day Conference, which addressed topics such as ``New Approached to Pediatric Asthma'' and ``Smoking Among Children and Families.'' MCHC has a long and impressive history of advocacy for the children of Genesee Valley. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Mott Children's Health Center for being named the 2002 Corporate Health Advocate of the Year and wishing them continued success.