Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. LEVIN. It is quite the opposite. The good Senator from Connecticut read the language which makes it clear there is no veto. We can always have the inherent right to use military force in self- defense, period. We never will yield that to the United Nations or to anyone else. My good friend from Connecticut was the author of a resolution back in 1991. He led the way on this authorization in the gulf war. The Senator was correct in his analysis, that we should move in the gulf war, and my good friend from Virginia was as well. That resolution the Senator from Connecticut offered to support military action in the gulf war said the following: The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Virginia in the gulf war resolution had language which was adopted by a close majority, but nonetheless adopted, which said the President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to the United Nations Security Council resolution. Nobody suggested then that the Senator from Connecticut was giving the United Nations a veto over U.S. military force. That was a grant of authority to enforce a United Nations resolution. That is the same language we are using.

Mr. LEVIN. I will put that in the form of a question. I vehemently disagree. I urge the Senator from Connecticut to read the language, which flat out says: We affirm ``the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense. . . .'' We affirm that. The Senator from Connecticut, in the resolution in 1991, did not even affirm that. It just simply authorized the President to use military force pursuant to the United Nations Security Council resolution. No one suggested then that anyone was ceding the power to use our force to the United Nations. Yet in our resolution, the alternative resolution, the multilateral resolution, for some reason, the folks who are supporting the go-it-alone resolution are suggesting we are ceding something to the U.N. when we explicitly reaffirm our right to self- defense.

Mr. LEVIN. Where does the word ``only'' appear in that resolution?

Mr. LEVIN. Where does the word ``only'' appear in this resolution? That is my question to my dear friend from Connecticut. The Senator added a word that is not in the resolution and ignores a paragraph, saying we have an inherent right of self-defense, that is in the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. We have an inherent right to use military force in self- defense, and that means, under law which is well established, that if there is an imminent threat to the United States, we do not have to wait for that threat to be implemented. We can act against any imminent threat whether or not there is a U.N. resolution covering that threat. If it is an imminent threat, we may act in self-defense.

Mr. LEVIN. No. You have asked me to interpret the words ``inherent right of self-defense.'' What I am saying is, under international law, self-defense requires that a threat be imminent.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka be added as a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of an alternative resolution which I will be introducing, and to explain why I believe it is the right way to go, and is a better alternative than the White House approach. At the outset, it must be noted that whatever differences there may be among us, the one thing which we can all agree upon is Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against Iran. He has launched invasions of Iran and Kuwait. For the last 11 years, he has defied the will of the entire world, as expressed in United Nations security resolutions, by refusing to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles. Another point which I believe there is a consensus on among Members of the Senate is the fact that confronting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein could lead to committing U.S. military forces, including ground forces, into combat, and that the vote we take on a resolution relating to Iraq may be the most important vote we make this year. Whether we commit our forces to attack Iraq as part of a United Nations authorized coalition, or whether we go it alone, could have immense consequences for our security and for future peace and stability in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and beyond. That is why I will be introducing an alternative resolution. The resolution agreed to between the White House and House leadership fails to address the two main problems with the original White House discussion draft. Those problems are the following: The White House approach still specifically authorizes at this time the use of force on a unilateral go-it-alone basis. That is, without Security Council authorization. Second, the White House approach authorizes the use of force beyond dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The resolution I will be introducing is consistent with how I think most Americans want us to proceed. It emphasizes the importance of dealing with Iraq on a multilateral basis and it withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone, should go unilaterally against Iraq, should the United Nations fail to act. My alternative resolution does the following: First, it urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be destroyed; and within that same U.N. resolution authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member States to enforce such resolution in the event Iraq refuses to comply. My alternative resolution will also specifically authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms and the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with such U.N. resolution. My resolution affirms under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action. The alternative resolution which I will be introducing affirms that Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not adopt the resolution I described above. It provides further that the President report to Congress every 60 days on the status of efforts to have the U.N. Security Council adopt such a resolution, and if such a resolution is adopted, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution. Many were relieved when the President of the United States went to the United Nations and rightfully declared the Iraqi threat is ``exactly the kind of aggressive threat that the United Nations was born to confront.'' The President reminded the world that Iraqi aggression was stopped after the invasion of Kuwait ``by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.'' In calling upon the United Nations to act again, the President committed the United States to ``work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. We will work,'' the President said, ``with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.'' Acting in this manner, the President was setting in motion the same process that was used when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. At that time, then-President Bush on November 29, 1990, obtained U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of force if Iraqi forces did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. President Bush assembled a coalition of 39 nations that included Arab nations, Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The United Arab Emirates, and Muslim nations Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and our NATO ally, Turkey. The Senate and the House of Representatives passed a joint resolution authorizing the use of force to achieve implementation of the U.N. resolution on January 12, 1991, almost 7 weeks after the U.N. acted, and 3 days prior to the U.N.'s deadline. The fact the United States went to and obtained U.N. authorization for the use of force meant that, with very few exceptions, the world was united in support of the United States and against Saddam Hussein. It did not mean the United States was going to war against an Arab nation. It meant that the world community, with the participation of Arab nations, was taking action against Iraq. It did not mean the United States was going to war against a Muslim nation. It meant the world community, with the participation of Muslim nations, was going to war against Iraq. It resulted in the sharing of risks and the sharing of costs of war. Also important, the United Nations, by its approval, gave unquestioned international legitimacy to the United States-led military action. And the United States, by seeking U.N. approval, cemented the credibility and the relevancy of the United Nations. President Bush has now gone to the U.N., as his father did before him, and laid out the issues with the following words: All the world now faces a test and the United Nations, a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequences? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime. That test for the United Nations was laid out clearly by President Bush. Negotiations are going on now among the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. We all pray they will meet the test, and that is why my resolution specifically urges the Security Council to adopt, promptly, a resolution that: demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear-weapons- usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply. Congress has a test that we have to face as well, and that test, in my view, is to support the President's request to the United Nations and not to do anything that will undermine the effort to get the United Nations to do what the President has requested that they do, and that, in my judgment and I think in the judgment of most of us, they should do. In other words, if Congress endorses the use of force, even in the absence of a U.N. authorization at this time, what it does is enable the members of the Security Council to take a pass on the use of force. They can avoid taking a tough position on the basis that the United States will act no matter what the U.N. does. I think we all want the U.N. to be relevant and credible. We want the U.N. to succeed. We do not want the U.N. to be relegated to humanitarian and disaster relief and other tasks that are useful to international peace and security but are not essential. I believe if it is done wisely, we can unite not only the Congress, but ultimately the world community, on a course of action that we all seek: The elimination of Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. In other words, our focus should be on uniting the world and not dividing it. Let me say that again. I strongly believe that the test for Congress is to help the President lead and unite the world, and not divide it. The resolution the White House supports authorizes the use of military force with or without world community support. In addition to letting the members of the U.N. Security Council off the hook, the adoption of that type of resolution tells the world that the United States is ready to act unilaterally, to go it alone, and the Congress is not even willing to wait to see if the United Nations will act to follow the President's request and unite the world to enforce its resolutions before deciding we will go it alone. Moreover, by not limiting the authorization for the use of force at this time to the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, the White House resolution endorses the use of force for regime change and for a host of other purposes as minor as getting the return of Kuwaiti archives, which is a requirement of one of the U.N. resolutions which the White House resolution says we will go to war to enforce. That language saying we will use force for purposes other than the elimination of weapons of mass destruction separates us from the one nation that has been our most faithful and trusted ally, Great Britain. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear on numerous occasions that Great Britain's willingness to go to war with Iraq is to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why on Earth would we want to divorce ourselves from Great Britain? Even if we abandoned the effort to unite the world, why would we emphasize the only apparent difference that we have with Great Britain? But the most important question, in my opinion, is whether we decide to go it alone at this time, to go to war with or without the support of the world community. In my view, a go-it-alone approach, where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community, entails serious risks and could have serious consequences for us in the Middle East and around the world. It makes a difference. It makes a difference, when deciding to use force, whether or not the use of force has the support of the world community. If we go it alone, will we be able to secure the use of airbases, ports and supply bases, and overflight rights in that region? Those rights and those capabilities are so important to the success of a military operation against Saddam. If we go it alone, will there be a reduction in the broad international support for the war on terrorism, including the law enforcement, financial, and intelligence cooperation that is so essential? If we go it alone, will that destabilize an already volatile region, undermine governments such as Jordan and Pakistan, and possibly end up with a radical regime in Pakistan, a country that has nuclear weapons? If we go it alone, if we go it without the support of the world community, will Saddam Hussein or his military commanders be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations in the region and against our military forces in response to our attack than would be the case if he faced a U.N.-authorized coalition, particularly if that coalition included Muslim nations as the coalition did during the gulf war? If we go it alone, will other nations view our action as a precedent for threatening unilateral military action against their neighbors in the future? If we go it alone, will we be undercutting efforts to get other countries to help us with the expensive, lengthy task of stabilizing Iraq after Saddam is removed? By seeking a U.N. resolution that will authorize U.N. member states to use force if Iraq does not comply with its terms, we are not giving the United Nations a veto. Rather, we are getting from the United Nations strength and international credibility and legitimacy, should military force be needed. The alternative resolution which I will offer is clear about the fact that we are not giving the U.N. a veto. We are just seeking support from the world community before we decide whether to go it alone. This is a similar approach to what Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently in an interview with David Frost. Prime Minister Blair is quoted as saying, ``I do not think that the U.N. will avoid the issue; but if they do, then we'll see at that time.'' In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee on September 23, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili addressed the issue of acting pursuant to a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorizes the use of force in the following manner: I am convinced that such a resolution would in fact be a powerful tool, and I say that for a number of reasons. First of all, we need to impress upon Saddam Hussein that he is not just facing the United States, but that he is facing the will of the majority of the world. We must also ensure that we have made it possible for as many of our friends and allies to join us. Some of them privately tell us they would do so, but that it's difficult for political, internal reasons, whatever, very difficult to do so without the United Nations having spoken on the issue. Some of them believe deeply that you should go to war only-- unless you're directly attacked--that you should go to war only with the sanction of the United Nations. Others just have that in their culture. Finally, I think it's important from a security point of view, because every time we undermine the credibility of the United Nations, we are probably hurting ourselves more than anyone else. We are a global Nation with global interests. And undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world. General Shalikashvili ended by stating, ``So I see nothing but value added for the United States to try our very best to get that kind of a resolution.'' General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added ``we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block.'' Those two former senior commanders were concerned, of course, not only with the diplomatic and political aspects of working through the United Nations, but also with the practical impact that not going through the United Nations would have on the actual conduct of a war. General Joseph Hoar, former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, the command with responsibility for the Middle East region, including Iraq, testified that: And the Arab countries, while they are supporting us in private, have a serious problem in convincing their populations that this is the right thing to do. And so I believe that we have to give them top cover, as well, and we will do that with the United Nations. On an operational level, I would just point out this, that, for example, if you can't bring Saudi Arabia into the coalition to be able to use, at a minimum, air space, but, ideally air bases as well, the complications associated with carrying out a military campaign will grow exponentially. We need them. We need a broad base. We need it for the political reasons as well as the military reasons that we all understand. It will make the whole job a great deal easier. And, in the long run, as Wes (General Clark) said, in our relationship with these countries in the future, it will expedite and ease our ability to do business after the military campaign is over. General Hoar's testimony points out the practical problems that result if we are using military force against Iraq without the support of the world community. The Saudi Foreign Minister has stated that if there was a Security Council Resolution backing military action, all United Nations members would have to honor it. But he made clear that Saudi Arabia remained opposed in principle to a unilateral attack by the United States. The inability to use Saudi airspace--no less Saudi air bases--would be a major impediment to the use of military force against Iraq. The position of European allies need to be considered as well. As the Washington Post reported last Monday, a senior European official responding to the United States going it alone, said ``A lot of Europeans would feel they'd been put in an intolerable position.'' For those who would agree to participate militarily, ``it would be less a coalition of the willing than of the dragooned.'' That says a lot. It is very important that we carefully consider the short-term and the long-term effects of unilateral action by the United States, and whether we need to make a decision on that at this point when we should be pressing all of our energies for United Nations action, and--as my alternative resolution does--letting the United Nations know we are ready to enforce their resolution. My alternative resolution specifically authorizes the use of American forces in support of a United Nations resolution. My alternative doesn't wait to see what the United Nations will do. My resolution puts the focus on getting the United Nations to act, and says in advance to the United Nations that we will authorize military force and use it in support of the resolution that we are seeking. It is very different than waiting for the United Nations to act, which, in fact, is what we did during the gulf war. This body didn't vote on authorizing military force until after the United Nations authorized member states to use force. My alternative resolution is stronger than that. It is a strong message to the United Nations. We are so committed to your acting to enforce your resolution and to authorize member states to enforce those resolutions with military force--we are so committed to that course and we believe it is so important that we force Saddam Hussein to open up to inspections and to disarm, we are so committed to that--that this Congress in my alternative resolution authorizes U.S. military force now in the expectation and the hope and the belief that you as a United Nations body will authorize member nations to act. This alternative approach--called The Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002--provides for the use of force pursuant to a subsequent United Nations Security Council resolution that authorizes United Nations member states to use force. It withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone unilaterally against Iraq. It doesn't preclude that. Should the President call us back into session and seek that authority, it does not preclude that at all. If we authorize the use of our military forces on a go-it-alone basis at this time--at the time we are seeking United Nations support--we will send the wrong message to the United Nations. Telling the United Nations that, if you do not enforce your resolutions, we will, not only send an inconsistent message, but it lets the United Nations off the hook. We should be seeking to unite the world against Saddam Hussein and not divide it. The best chance of having Saddam Hussein comply is when he looks down the barrel of a gun and sees the world at the other end, and not just the United States. So our focus should be securing a United Nations resolution that can unite the world; that has the best chance of forcing compliance; that reduces the risk to our forces and to our interests throughout the world; that avoids to the maximum extent possible the negative consequences, if force is required, including the loss of cooperation on the war on terrorism; and that has the best chance of isolating Saddam Hussein rather than isolating the United States. This resolution, again, does not determine that we will not go it alone if the United Nations does not authorize the use of force. It withholds judgment on that very difficult and very different issue. But it says in that case, if the United Nations does not act, that the President can convene us quickly in order to seek authorization for going it alone should the United Nations not act in a prompt way. The vote that we take may have significant consequences for our children and our grandchildren. I believe our security is enhanced when we seek the authority and the credibility of the United Nations, and if military force is required, that it is used with the full support of the world community. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week the Violence Policy Center released its annual review examining the role of firearms in murders involving one female victim and one male offender. The analysis found that in 2000, the most recent data available, a majority of women who were murdered were killed with firearms. Seventy-six percent of all firearm homicides of women were committed with handguns. The report is sobering in demonstrating how easily a domestic violence dispute can turn into domestic homicide. According to the VPC's review, in 2000, there were 1,805 women murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents reported to the FBI. Of the more 1,800 women murdered, 963 of the victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers and 331 were murdered during the course of an argument. In my home State of Michigan, 82 women were murdered. For homicides in which police could identify the weapon, 41 were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 22 victims were killed with handguns. In 1996, Congress passed legislation to deny firearms purchases to individuals who were under a domestic violence restraining order or convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Despite the passage of this law, many people are slipping through the system. I supported that legislation because of evidence that people who had committed acts of domestic violence were buying guns and using them. I also support closing the gun show loophole, which requires background checks for people who purchase guns at gun shows. The lack of background checks at gun shows leaves battered women and their children more vulnerable to violence. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The VPC's report highlights how much we still have to do to protect women from becoming victims of domestic violence, and I urge my colleagues to support sensible gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this weekend firefighters from across the country are coming to Washington, DC, to honor the lives of their family, friends, and colleagues during the 2002 Fallen Firefighters Foundation Memorial Weekend. Since 1981, the names of America's fallen fire heroes have been memorialized at the official National Fallen Firefighters Memorial. Sadly, this year the names of 446 brave and heroic men and women of the fire service will be added to the Roll of Honor in Emmitsburg, MD. Last year, 442 firefighters from 34 States lost their lives while serving their communities. 2001 was the deadliest year in the history of America's fire service. New York leads the list with 359 firefighters killed, including the 347 World Trade Center heroes. Also, four firefighters who died before 2001 but whose names had not been included on the national memorial will be added. Three individuals from my home State of Michigan will also be added to Roll of Honor. James Pelton joined the City of Mason Volunteer Fire Department in May of 1964. He received his training the old fashioned way, on the job. Jim worked his way up through the ranks from First Lieutenant to Chief of the department. He always looked for ways to educate people about the importance of fire safety. Jim helped implement a variety of training programs, including ice rescue, hazardous materials handling, and vehicle extrication training. In April 1972, James Rupkey became a charter member of Station Five of the Troy Fire Department. He served the department for more than 30 years. As Troy's volunteer assistant fire chief, he designed software to help the fire department respond run more efficiently. According to his colleagues, no matter what rank he held, he was always a leader at the fire department. In 2000, the department named him Firefighter of the Year. Christopher Towne, Engine Company 5 of the Detroit Fire Department, joined the fire department in 1972. Christopher was a courageous fireman, in 1991, he received a department citation for helping save another firefighter from being overcome by smoke when the firefighter's equipment malfunctioned. Christopher's job often took him out of the firehouse to the Children's Hospital Burn Unit where he worked as a fundraiser activist. These are just three of the 442 firefighters that lost their lives last year. The Fallen Firefighters Foundation Memorial offers family, friends, and loved ones an opportunity to grieve, honor, and bring closure to the loss of their loved ones. However, I hope that over the coming weekend, people across the country will take a moment to thank and honor their firefighters for their service, and I know my colleagues will join me in honoring the lives of these courageous public servants.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the decline of our economy in the last year and a half is truly staggering. It is absolutely critical that we in Congress, before we leave, do everything we possibly can to help Americans who have been hurt by this downturn--in particular, the people who are unemployed and having trouble getting back into the workforce. That is why it is essential that before we leave we extend unemployment benefits and adopt the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, which has been introduced by Senator Wellstone, Senator Clinton, myself, and others. Over 8 million Americans are unemployed. Since January of 2001, the national unemployment rate has risen from 4.2 percent to 5.7 percent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, between May and July of this year, approximately 900,000 workers exhausted all of the additional weeks of Federal unemployment benefits that they received as a result of the economic stimulus legislation that passed the Congress last March. By the end of this year, that number will swell to 2.2 million workers having exhausted their unemployment benefits. We have lost more than 2 million private sector jobs since January of 2001. For the first time in 50 years, the number of private sector jobs has actually declined in this country. Now, the rate of increase in those jobs has gone up and down over the last 50 years but never in the last 50 years has there been an actual decline in the number of private sector jobs until this last year. The legislation introduced last week would do something about these problems by providing all States with an additional 13 weeks of temporary extended unemployment benefits. It would also authorize States with the highest levels of unemployment to get funds for an additional 7 weeks of benefits on top of the 13. This is especially important to my home State of Michigan. Michigan has one of the higher unemployment rates nationwide, currently 6.2 percent.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Oklahoma. Mr. President, the legislation we introduced last week would do something about these problems by giving all States an additional 13 weeks of temporary extended unemployment benefits and would authorize States with the highest levels of unemployment to get funds for an additional 7 weeks of benefits above the 13 weeks. As I indicated, my home State has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation, currently 6.2 percent. That is the seventh highest in the Nation, and it is almost a full percentage point higher than it was just a year and a half ago. More than 60,000 workers in Michigan currently receive Federal unemployment benefits, with an additional 50,000 Michigan workers having already exhausted their benefits. Michigan's median household income fell by 4.1 percent last year. Only four other States fared worse. In the country as a whole, median household income fell 2.2 percent last year, the first drop since 1991. So this legislation is crucial for Michigan's hard-pressed workers and their families, as well as for workers across the land. This is not just doing what is fair and what is right and what is equitable. Those reasons ought to be sufficient. In addition to that, providing additional benefits is a good stimulus for our ailing economy. The money we are talking about is money that will be spent. Those eligible to receive these benefits are people trying to make ends meet on a day-to-day basis, people who need money to put food on the table, to buy a prescription drug, to make a car payment, to pay rent, or to pay a mortgage. They spend this money. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, every dollar invested in unemployment benefits generates $2.15 in gross domestic product. This bill extending unemployment benefits will put money into the hands of people who need it, people who will spend it, and that is good for our economy, as well as for them, because it sustains the jobs other people still have. There may be Members who will argue we cannot afford to extend unemployment benefits. Obviously, we should be concerned about our current budget situation. The 10-year surplus projection has declined by $5.3 trillion, or 94 percent, since January of 2001. But our budget problem does not come from extending desperately needed benefits to out-of-work Americans. The major problem is last year's $1.5 trillion tax cut which provides more benefits to the top 1 percent of all taxpayers than it does the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers combined. According to analysts who reviewed the CBO numbers, last year's tax cut is the single largest cause for our evaporated surplus. September 11 and its aftermath had an enormous impact on an economy that was already sputtering. The economy has not recovered. There are signs that it will not recover for a while longer. The tax cut has blown a hole in our budget, yet it is not just the centerpiece of the administration's economic policy, it appears to be the only economic policy we hear about from the administration. Since Congress passed a bipartisan extension of unemployment benefits in March, nearly 2 million people have exhausted those benefits without finding new jobs. The ability for them to receive additional benefits has expired. Yesterday, Senator Wellstone attempted to pass this bill by unanimous consent, but was prevented from doing so. This issue should be one of our top priorities. We should not leave this year without extending these benefits for America's unemployed. I am hopeful that Democrats and Republicans in Congress will be able to come together as we have done in the past and support the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 3 minutes to complete my remarks.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I notice a number of our colleagues are in the Chamber, and my time has expired. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 3 minutes to complete my remarks.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to extend my congratulations to Marygrove College in Detroit on the celebration of its 75th anniversary. For the last three-quarters of a century, Marygrove College has offered a strong liberal arts education to students from a wide-variety of backgrounds. Marygrove was originally founded in 1846 as St. Mary Academy in Monroe, MI, by the Sister, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The school was originally designed to teach young women and girls. The gates of Marygrove College opened in September 1927 to welcome 287 students through its doors. Today, 6,000 students crisscross its metropolitan Detroit campus to take advantage of a quality and diverse education. The college offers associate's, bachelor's, and master's degrees in 54 areas of study. The courses range from arts, music, and social work to radiology and science. Taking into account the fact that the average undergraduate student is 33 years old and the average graduate student is 36, Marygrove offers a special opportunity for students to advance their education within a schedule built around their established lives. Without an educational opportunity like Marygrove's, many people might choose not to pursue their education because they believe they are too busy or too entrenched in their ``normal'' lives. Marygrove's importance to Detroit is enhanced by its contributions to the arts community. The school enriches Detroit's cultural scene through its extensive art, dance, and music programs. The school regularly sponsors exhibits in its beautiful art gallery as well as frequent recitals and concerts for the public. Two years ago, Marygrove became the home of Detroit's 80-year-old Institute of Music and Dance. Along with the celebrations for its 75-year anniversary, Marygrove will open its newly-renovated 400-seat theater in November. In addition to a more dancer-friendly surface, the theater will contain a new multipurpose room for rehearsals and dance classes. The facility will have new acoustical systems, new house and theatrical lighting, better dressing room facilities, and better lines of sight from the balcony seats. The reopening of this theater, once used by the native Michigander, Madonna, will provide a new chance for developing and pursuing performing arts opportunities in Detroit. I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating the staff, teachers, and students of Marygrove College on its 75 years of educational accomplishments. Best of luck to Marygrove on the next 75.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record 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.