Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would be willing to accept whatever Senator Carper is willing to make.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am introducing along with Senators Thompson, Lieberman and McConnell the Private Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 2002, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to gain access to national criminal history information to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. 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 obtain 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 check information on current and prospective employees through the appropriate State agencies, thereby permitting firms to obtain relevant criminal history information they might not otherwise receive. The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal crimes and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most efficiently conducted by using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries, to name a few, to test their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that justified passage of those laws, especially the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, argues for 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 access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources. We understand that in about 40 States, private security companies are required to receive a State license in order to conduct business. 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 record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases is the exception rather than the rule. That is because only one State, California, makes such reviews mandatory. In the other jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted at the discretion of the States. I am told that in approximately half of the 36 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched. An additional 13 States have not even authorized any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 31 States, a private security employer typically has no access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 31 States, an employment applicant in 1 State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The State conducting the search would have no idea such a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database. Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, I am told that searches of the backgrounds of new employees in the Federal database often take 90 to 120 days. While checks are pending, security guards are often provided a temporary license. 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 our homeland security, this lack of access to criminal checks and the time it takes to complete such checks is unacceptable. We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this information. The bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved. First, the bill permits private security employers to request that the FBI criminal history database be searched for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their States' 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: one, ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; two, prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and three, 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's 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 laws 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: one, a felony; two, a violent misdemeanor within the past 10 years; or, three, crime of dishonesty within the past 10 years. Thus, only the fact that a 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' rights. 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. I believe that the time is right for us to enact this legislation. It strikes the right balance between the need for 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 ease the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on this the 87th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the men, women and children who lost their lives in the 20th centuries' first systematic attempt to extinguish an entire people. The past century was marred by many acts of unthinkable brutality and genocide. Among these events was the Armenian Genocide. April 24 marked the inception of a brutal campaign to eliminate Armenians from the Turkish Ottoman Empire. It was on this day in 1915 that 300 of the leaders in Istanbul's Armenian community were rounded up, deported and murdered along with 5,000 of the poorest Armenians who were executed in the streets and in their homes. During the period from 1915-1923, approximately 1.5 million Armenians perished under the rule of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Countless other Armenians fell victim to deportation, expropriation, torture, starvation and massacre. It is out of necessity that all freedom loving people must remain vigilant in their efforts to rebut and refute those who would deny the events of the Armenian genocide ever occurred. The Armenian genocide was the result of a consciously orchestrated government plan. Henry Morgenthau Sr., the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, sent a cable to the U.S. State Department in 1915 saying that the, ``deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.'' During my tenure in the Senate, I have spoken out about the Armenian Genocide because we must acknowledge the horrors perpetrated against the Armenian people and reaffirm our commitment to ensure that the world cannot and will not forget these crimes against humanity. We must speak out against such a tragedy and dedicate ourselves to ensuring that evils such as the Armenian Genocide are not revisited on our planet. This is the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of any genocide. It is important that we take time to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors that are still with us. In the Rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building there is an important exhibit displayed by the Genocide Project. The Genocide Project is an organization that seeks to preserve the memory of the Armenian Genocide by creating powerful displays that combine photos and the narrative from survivors of the Genocide. I would urge all my colleagues to view this powerful and moving account of the tragic events which we remember today. The Armenian people have preserved their culture, faith and identity for over 1,000 years. In the last century alone, the Armenian people withstood the horrors of two World Wars and several decades of Soviet dominance in order to establish modern Armenia. I hope all my Senate colleagues will join me in honoring and remembering the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am introducing along with Senators Thompson, Lieberman and McConnell the Private Security Officer Employment Standards Act of 2002, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to gain access to national criminal history information to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. 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 obtain 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 check information on current and prospective employees through the appropriate State agencies, thereby permitting firms to obtain relevant criminal history information they might not otherwise receive. The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal crimes and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most efficiently conducted by using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries, to name a few, to test their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that justified passage of those laws, especially the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, argues for 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 access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources. We understand that in about 40 States, private security companies are required to receive a State license in order to conduct business. 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 record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases is the exception rather than the rule. That is because only one State, California, makes such reviews mandatory. In the other jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted at the discretion of the States. I am told that in approximately half of the 36 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched. An additional 13 States have not even authorized any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 31 States, a private security employer typically has no access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 31 States, an employment applicant in 1 State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The State conducting the search would have no idea such a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database. Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, I am told that searches of the backgrounds of new employees in the Federal database often take 90 to 120 days. While checks are pending, security guards are often provided a temporary license. 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 our homeland security, this lack of access to criminal checks and the time it takes to complete such checks is unacceptable. We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this information. The bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved. First, the bill permits private security employers to request that the FBI criminal history database be searched for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their States' 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: one, ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; two, prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and three, 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's 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 laws 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: one, a felony; two, a violent misdemeanor within the past 10 years; or, three, crime of dishonesty within the past 10 years. Thus, only the fact that a 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' rights. 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. I believe that the time is right for us to enact this legislation. It strikes the right balance between the need for 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 ease the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Fitzgerald amendment because the underlying language in the bill would allow even an incinerator that is out of compliance with federal emissions regulations to qualify as a ``renewable energy source.'' A facility which is not in compliance with the applicable state and federal pollution prevention control and permit requirements for any period of time should not be considered an eligible facility for purposes of the renewable portfolio standard. It is my understanding that this distinction was utilized when it came to the tax incentives in this bill and it should be utilized in this area as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to Jewish Heritage Week, which was recognized from April 14 through 21, 2002. Every spring since 1976, during the season in which Jewish people commemorate Passover, Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Memorial Day) and Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel Independence Day), a week is set aside to promote and encourage all Americans to learn about the history of Jewish Americans and to participate in activities that highlight the accomplishments of these citizens. It is in light of that charge I come to the Senate floor to highlight this important week. For centuries, Jews from across the globe have come to America seeking the ability to worship in freedom and to pursue their individual and hopes and dreams in peace. Throughout the many years, nearly every facet of American culture has been cultivated and enriched by the talents of Jewish people, including business, education, research, fine arts, and government. In fact many of their names and accomplishments are found in the textbooks of students across this country. Their contributions to our character and culture help make America a better place. We also commend our friends in Israel as they celebrated the 54th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. This milestone is a tribute to the strength and resilience of the Jewish spirit in the face of great adversity. At this time, it is imperative that freedom loving people from around the world stand with the people of Israel in affirming Israel's right of existence and its right to defend itself against those who would use terror to achieve their goals. I know my Senate colleagues will join with me and the millions of Americans to mark this special week to pay tribute to the countless people of Jewish faith and descent who have contributed so much to the definition of our nation and the world.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold 2 days of hearings on the subcommittee's 10-month investigation into gasoline prices entitled ``Gas Prices: How Are They Really Set?'' In the spring and early summer of 2001, most parts of the country experienced a dramatic increase in the price of gasoline. Numerous consumer groups expressed concern over price gouging. The oil companies responded that there were problems with supply. This series of hearings by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will explore how gasoline prices are set and why they have become so volatile. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 30, and Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., each day, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the subcommittee staff at 224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a letter released last week by the General Accounting Office highlighted serious problems that could result from reducing the period of time that National Instant Criminal Background System records are retained to only 24-hours after a firearm sale. Under current NICS regulations, records of allowed firearms sales can be retained for up to 90 days, after which the records must be destroyed. On July 6, 2001, the Department of Justice published proposed changes to the NICS regulations that would reduce the maximum retention period from 90 days to only one day. According to FBI officials and the GAO letter, retained records that were more than 1 day old but less than 90 days old were used to initiate over 100 firearm-retrieval actions by law enforcement in the 4-month period beginning July 3, 2001, through October 2001. As a result, the GAO believes that next-day destruction of NICS records would likely obstruct the ability of law enforcement to retrieve firearms from individuals who were mistakenly approved to purchase firearms. Since its inception, NICS checks have prevented more than 156,000 felons, fugitives and others not eligible to purchase a firearm from doing so. While not infringing upon any law-abiding citizen's ability to purchase a firearm. The retention of NICS records for a sufficient period of time is important. I am greatly concerned by the Attorney General's action and I support 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 GAO letter provides further evidence that the Schumer/Kennedy bill is common sense legislation that deserves enactment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I first want to commend the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts, for his leadership on this bill. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act gives law enforcement and immigration authorities greater access to the tools they need to improve border security. The legislation enhances our ability to identify terrorists and other individuals who should not be allowed to enter the Untied States and establishes new programs to ensure that people whom we welcome as visitors live up to their responsibilities under our immigration laws. I am particularly pleased that the bill contains two amendments that I authored: one extending training opportunities to Border Patrol agents and another requiring the Department of Justice to provide Congress information on aliens who fail to appear at removal hearings. It is critical that every law enforcement agent who works on the border understands and correctly applies our immigration laws. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act authorizes appropriations for such training for various law enforcement and immigration personnel at the border. My first amendment ensures that these training opportunities are extended to Border Patrol agents. My second amendment requires the Department of Justice to report to the Congress how many aliens arrested while entering the country outside ports of entry fail to show up for their removal hearings. The amendment is the result of a hearing I held last November at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. At that hearing, members of the subcommittee heard from current and past employees of the U.S. Border Patrol who came forward to express their concerns with INS practices involving the release on recognizance, that is on their promise to return, of people arrested while trying to gain illegal entry into the United States outside ports of entry. While the problems raised by the Border Patrol agents at the hearing would have been serious in normal circumstances, they carried particular weight following the attacks of September 11. What the agents told my subcommittee is that when people are arrested by the Border Patrol, at places other than ports of entry, most who don't voluntarily return to their country of origin, usually Mexico or Canada, are given a notice to appear at a removal hearing. The Border Patrol initially decides whether the person should be detained, released on bond or released on his or her own recognizance while awaiting the hearing. The removal hearing can take several months to occur. But detention decisions are not made by the Border Patrol alone. If the Border Patrol decides to detain a person or set a bond to help assure that a person shows up at the hearing, the INS deportation office can revise that decision and order the person released on a lower bond or on his or her own recognizance. It was revealed at the hearing that the Border Patrol and the INS simply release on recognizance a large percentage of people who are arrested for illegal entry. That means people who get caught and are arrested at the border while attempting to enter the country illegally are nonetheless allowed to move at will in this country with no constraints other than a written instruction to appear at a hearing, the purpose of which is to remove them from the country. This practice is absurd. And statistics from the Detroit Sector illustrate the extent of the absurdity. In fiscal year 2001, the Detroit Sector of the Border Patrol arrested slightly more than 2100 people. A significant percentage of these people were arrested while actually attempting to enter the country illegally. Of those 2100 or so, slightly less than two-thirds were voluntarily returned to their country of origin and 773 were issued notices to appear at a removal hearing. Pending their removal hearing, 595 or more than 75 percent of those issued notices to appear were released on their own recognizance. Many of these people were released without a criminal background check and some were not even able, or perhaps willing, to provide the Border Patrol with an address. We learned that people released on their own recognizance who don't have an address are simply given a form to mail to the INS when they get an address so the agency can mail them a notice of their hearing date. That is the extent of the follow-through by the INS. So, how many of these 575 people actually showed up for their hearings? One former INS District Director and Border Patrol Chief has said that in one of his sectors he thought the percentage of persons arrested outside a port of entry and released on their own recognizance who don't show up for their hearing was 90 percent. When I asked the INS what the actual number was, the agency couldn't tell me. The INS doesn't even keep this statistic. Moreover, we learned at November's hearing that there was no requirement that, before releasing them, the Border Patrol complete a criminal background on people arrested for crossing the border illegally. I found that situation unjustifiable, and apparently so did the INS when they were made aware of it. As a result of my November hearing, the INS issued a memorandum requiring that a criminal background check be conducted on all aliens arrested and released on bond or recognizance. That change is important but additional improvements in both policy and practice are necessary. The manner in which the Border Patrol and INS process aliens arrested between ports of entry remains unacceptable. That is why my second amendment to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act requires the Department of Justice to provide the Congress an annual report containing the number of aliens arrested outside ports of entry who were served a notice to appear for a removal hearing and released on recognizance and who failed to attend their removal hearing. It is my hope that once the INS and the Congress comprehend the extent of the problem, we will change the way we process aliens who are arrested at the border while attempting to enter the country illegally. We are an open and generous country and we welcome people from around the world who share our commitment to hard work, common decency and egalitarian values. But we are also a Nation of laws. And with the privilege of living in America comes an obligation to follow the law. The hearing I held at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations highlighted a situation where our immigration laws were simply not being followed. My amendment ensures that Congress is able to track whether or not this situation improves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, during the weekend of April 19, 2002, as we commemorate Cancer Awareness Month, hundreds of women from around the country will gather in my home town, Detroit, MI, to celebrate breast cancer survivorship among African American women. This is a very special group of women, in that they are all survivors of the most common type of cancer of women in the United States. I take great pleasure in welcoming them to Detroit and want to bring to your attention, the many accomplishments of the sponsoring organizations and the goals of this conference. The 4th Annual National Breast Cancer Conference, which is sponsored by the Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit's nationally renowned cancer treatment center and breast care center, and Sisters' Network, Inc. presents an aggressive agenda focusing on the survivorship of African American Women who have, and who will encounter the challenge of breast cancer, a disease which has claimed far too many lives of the members of any community, but within the African American community, 28 percent more than other ethnic groups. According to a recent report appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers said that studies have shown that black women are more likely to be diagnosed with late stage breast cancer and to have a shorter survival time than white women. We should all find these statistics unacceptable. During this conference, with the guidance of medical professionals from around the country, including Detroit's own Dr. Lisa Newman, Associate Director of the Waltz Comprehensive Breast Center, there will be discussions on how to eradicate all of those barriers women of the African American community face when assaulted by this dreaded disease. I am proud to acknowledge the work and dedication of Cassandra Woods, my Michigan Chief of Staff, who is the president of the Greater Metropolitan Detroit Chapter of Sisters' Network, Inc, and a breast cancer survivor and the national president and founder of the Network, Ms. Karen Jackson. These women and the members of the 37 chapters from around the country are committed to increasing local and national attention to the devastation that breast cancer has in the African American community. These women believe that through education, advocacy, research, and support for each other, they can make a marked difference in breast cancer outcomes and the rate of survival among their sisters. I applaud this effort, I support this effort, and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the best of outcomes for this conference and with the challenges ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now debating energy policy in the Senate that will affect the lives of generations to come, so we must make sure that our approach is comprehensive and balanced. We cannot allow poor energy policy proposals to be used as a smokescreen for an unwillingness to focus on the harder long-term issues. Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is one such bad policy proposal. It is impossible for the United States to ``drill'' its way out of oil dependency. The United States has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. The Arctic refuge contains less than 6 months of economically-recoverable oil and that oil would not be available for 10 years. This means that drilling in ANWR would not provide any immediate energy relief for American families. Further, the claim that drilling in ANWR would create thousands of jobs is excessive. The job estimates used to support drilling in the Arctic refuge were developed by the American Petroleum Institute, API, in 1990 and are insupportable. According to the Congressional Research Service and other recent independent studies, the API used exaggerated estimates and questionable economic analysis. More than 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is open to oil and natural gas exploration or development today. In 1999, the Clinton administration opened nearly 4 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas drilling and signed a bill lifting the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope oil, a move strongly supported by industry. This action opened 425 tracts on 3.9 million acres, an area more than twice the size of ANWR. As a result of improved technologies and renewed interest in the North Slope, the lease sale returned more than $104 million in bonus bids, 50 percent of which will go to the Federal Government, and 50 percent to the State of Alaska. The oil industry should explore and develop the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska before there is any consideration of opening ANWR. As population and the economy grow, so does the demand for energy. We do need to keep the United States at the forefront of innovative energy production. The efficient use of energy has to be our primary goal and we need to create incentives to conserve. There are many ways to do this. Midwestern farmlands are ideal for growing high-yield ``energy crops,'' including soybeans grown in Michigan, to help power our economy. Corn grown in the Midwest can be used to produce ethanol, a cleaner burning fuel for vehicles. While there are barriers that must be overcome to bring these alternative sources of power on line, we should support renewable energy programs by offering incentives to those who use them. Further, a new generation of automotive technology is under development that offers great promise in our quest to achieve greater fuel efficiency. Technologies such as hybrid vehicles, which use an internal combustion engine in combination with a battery and electric motor, and fuel cells, which are devices using hydrogen and oxygen to create electricity and heat, should help to dramatically improve fuel economy and protect our environment. Drilling in our pristine wilderness will not alter our dependence on foreign oil, it will only alter our protected wilderness. We have a responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages a unique and irreplaceable wilderness.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask that the Senate join me today in commemorating the inauguration of Sister Rose Marie Kujawa as the 6th president of Madonna University. For over three decades, Sister Rose Marie has dedicated her time to educating the mind and spirit of youth in southeastern Michigan. Sister Rose Marie, a 1966 graduate and mathematics major of Madonna College, returned to her alma mater in 1975 after a decade of teaching high school. During her first appointment in the mathematics department, Sister Rose Marie organized and taught the first computer courses at the college. Soon thereafter, she gained additional responsibilities in the planning and development office. Madonna College underwent dramatic change in the years following Sister Rose Marie's promotion to the position of Academic vice president in 1978. Numerous undergraduate programs were introduced in areas such as applied science, biochemistry, computer science, international studies, Japanese, and psychology. At the same time, a number of departments and programs sought and received professional accreditations. The college also established writing and computer requirements for graduation. The greatest change for the college, which came in 1991, was largely due to the dedication of Sister Rose Marie. As chairperson of the ``University Study'' committee, Sister Rose Marie compared the academic quality and support structures of Madonna with 13 other private universities and discovered that Madonna favorably compared with all of them. The college then took her findings to the regional accrediting body and the State of Michigan Department of Education. Both organizations concurred with her conclusions and soon thereafter Madonna College became Madonna University. In addition to her work at the university, Sister Rose Marie committed a great deal of time to community service and sits on the boards of numerous community organization. She has also traveled to over 20 countries, where she has developed important overseas relationships for the University. The importance of dedication such as Sister Rose Marie's cannot be overstated. I know that my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Sister Rose Marie and Madonna University on this significant occasion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this nation's future energy policy, we would like to discuss the intent of the amendment that the Senate will adopt regarding the planning and coordination of energy transmission lines in the Great Lakes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the recent debate shows the challenges our country faces in balancing environmental protection with our Nation's energy security. Containing nearly 95 percent of our countries surface fresh water, the Great Lakes are a natural treasure which we must work to protect. Today I offered an amendment which would request that the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with representatives of the appropriate Federal and State agencies and the National Academy of Science, conduct a study of the transmission of natural gas and electricity across the Great Lakes and report back to Congress within 365 days regarding the impacts of such lines and recommendations for minimizing their environmental impact. As the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas will play an increasingly important role in addressing our nations energy demands. Even today, natural gas consumption is forecasted to increase at over 2 percent per year. However, the infrastructure for transporting natural gas is already strained. To address this problem, a number of companies have applied for permits to place pipelines and electric transmission lines across the Great Lakes. One such project is a pipeline which would transport up to 700 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to New York and the northeast. The pipeline would cross the bottom of Lake Erie for 93.8 miles, from Port Stanley, Ontario to Ripley, NY. This pipeline will be constructed using a new technique called jet trenching, which will suspend two and a half million cubic yards of sediment in Lake Erie. Much of this sediment may be contaminated and the effects of its redistribution are at best, unknown. Further, no one has analyzed the capacity of the Lakes to handle suspended sediments. It is obvious that energy transmission infrastructure is important, but it is critical that we understand the impacts of placing this infrastructure across the lake beds. It is also imperative that we develop a long term strategy for their placement. This amendment would require the Department of Energy to examine these questions and make recommendations on how to assure that these incredible bodies of water are protected for future generations. This amendment is simple, but its role in addressing the challenges we now face is essential. I want to thank my colleagues in supporting this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is our intent that this amendment require the Secretary of Energy to complete a study that will include a review of the expected energy demand--including the geographic distribution of the demand--in the Great Lakes States and northeastern States for a 10-year period; a review of the proposed locations for new natural gas-fired electric generation facilities; a review of the locations and capacity of interstate and intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines in all Great Lakes states and other energy transmission infrastructure across the Great Lakes in existence or proposed as of the date of the completion of the study; a review of the potential environmental effects that could result from the construction of pipelines and other energy transmission infrastructure across the Great Lakes. When reviewing the potential environmental effects of construction, the Secretary should consider contaminated sediment deposits, Areas of Concern as designated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, highly sensitive fisheries, and highly sensitive nearshore and coastal habitat. The Secretary should also include an analysis of potential environmental benefits of new natural gas-fired electric generation facilities and reduced consumption measure that could be undertaken; an analysis of the capacity of the Great Lakes to handle suspended sediment; takes into consideration the impacts of accommodating the energy transmission infrastructure on land use along the coasts of the Great Lakes; and takes into consideration the emergency response time for accidents in the energy transmission infrastructure. Not later than 180 days after enactment of the underlying bill, the Secretary should report his findings and recommendations for the coordination of the development of natural gas and other energy transmission infrastructure that would minimize the aggregate negative environmental effects on the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the third time in 6 weeks, a gunman has killed a young girl in Detroit. The first time it was a 7-year-old, killed by a man who opened fire on a car full of children. The second time it was a 3-year-old, shot while she was watching television in her room. And just this past Wednesday, an 8-year-old was shot while sleeping at home. The Detroit Police Department has one man in custody, but no one has been formally charged. These are very tragic events. In addition to prosecuting the criminals who commit these horrific crimes, we can do more to prevent them, we should close the gun show loophole so that it is more difficult for criminals to gain access to guns. 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. In April of last year, Senator Jack Reed introduced the Gun Show Background Check Act which would close this loophole in the law. The Reed bill, which is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, extends the Brady Bill background check requirement to all sellers of firearms at gun shows. I cosponsored that 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. I urge the Senate to debate and pass this common sense gun-safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Senior Nutrition Act. This legislation which is cosponsored by my friend and colleague from my home state of Michigan, Senator Stabenow as well as my good friend Senator Domenici seeks to address in inequity in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, that I have long sought to address. CSFP is an important U.S. Department of Agriculture commodity food program that serves nearly four hundred thousand individuals every month, many of whom live in my home state of Michigan. The vast majority of these individuals are senior citizens. In fact, CSFP is the primary senior commodity program of the USDA. The average senior citizen pays $1000 dollars per year to purchase prescription drugs, and many senior citizens living on fixed incomes, are forced to choose between prescription drugs and food. Given the dire choices facing many seniors, reforming the Commodity Supplemental Food Program so that it can serve more seniors is a matter of great importance. This legislation seeks to increase the ability of seniors to get the food that they need by granting categorical eligibility for seniors if they can participate in the Food Stamp Program. Additional verification is not needed in this case. The Food Stamp Program provides a medical expense deduction which seniors may use to account for their high prescription drug costs. This legislation will also raise the CSFP eligibility level for seniors to 185 percent of the poverty level. Raising the eligibility level to 185 percent of the poverty level, from the current level of 130 percent, would make eligibility levels consistent for women with children and senior citizens. In addition this bill will raise the authorized level for CSFP to $200 million of funding over 5 years. This will ensure that all eligible to receive food under CSFP will do so while allowing for the expansion of the program beyond the 28 States and the District of Columbia which currently participate in the program. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and would like to thank Senators Stabenow and Domenici for their hard work in crafting this legislation. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join us in supporting and assign this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Senior Nutrition Act. This legislation which is cosponsored by my friend and colleague from my home state of Michigan, Senator Stabenow as well as my good friend Senator Domenici seeks to address in inequity in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, that I have long sought to address. CSFP is an important U.S. Department of Agriculture commodity food program that serves nearly four hundred thousand individuals every month, many of whom live in my home state of Michigan. The vast majority of these individuals are senior citizens. In fact, CSFP is the primary senior commodity program of the USDA. The average senior citizen pays $1000 dollars per year to purchase prescription drugs, and many senior citizens living on fixed incomes, are forced to choose between prescription drugs and food. Given the dire choices facing many seniors, reforming the Commodity Supplemental Food Program so that it can serve more seniors is a matter of great importance. This legislation seeks to increase the ability of seniors to get the food that they need by granting categorical eligibility for seniors if they can participate in the Food Stamp Program. Additional verification is not needed in this case. The Food Stamp Program provides a medical expense deduction which seniors may use to account for their high prescription drug costs. This legislation will also raise the CSFP eligibility level for seniors to 185 percent of the poverty level. Raising the eligibility level to 185 percent of the poverty level, from the current level of 130 percent, would make eligibility levels consistent for women with children and senior citizens. In addition this bill will raise the authorized level for CSFP to $200 million of funding over 5 years. This will ensure that all eligible to receive food under CSFP will do so while allowing for the expansion of the program beyond the 28 States and the District of Columbia which currently participate in the program. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and would like to thank Senators Stabenow and Domenici for their hard work in crafting this legislation. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join us in supporting and assign this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my amendment will ensure that the Michigan system of provisional voting, a highly progressive system, will not be disturbed or disrupted by the language of this bill. Michigan is often cited as an example of a ``best practices'' state in terms of elections. Provisional voting works like this in Michigan: on election day, if a voter's name does not appear on the precinct polling list; the election workers verify whether the voter is actually registered in the jurisdiction. This means that the election workers check with the computerized statewide voter file, in Michigan; this is called the Qualified Voter File, or QVF. The voter signs an affidavit asserting that a voter registration was submitted prior to the close of state registration and identifies himself or herself. The voter than completes a new voter registration application and is issued a ballot. The ballot is cast and counted on election day; however, the ballot is tagged in a manner that permits a court of law in a contested election case to connect the voter to the specific ballot if it is later determined the voter was not qualified to cast the ballots. This provisional voting system works well in Michigan and I would like to ensure that Michigan is able to maintain its system under the pending legislation. I have spoken with several county and statewide election officials in Michigan, who have raised concerns that Michigan might be inadvertently required under the pending bill to alter the way Michigan currently conducts provisional voting. My amendment will ensure that will not happen and I greatly appreciate the managers accepting this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Centers' for Disease Control most recent National Vital Statistics Report, which measures all causes of death in the United States reports that the death rate from firearm injuries dropped nearly 6 percent from 1998 to 1999. The 1999 gun-death toll was 28,874 persons, the first time the figure has dropped below 30,000 since national statistics on gun deaths were first kept in 1979. Preliminary data indicate that there was likely another significant decline in 2000. These are encouraging statistics, but the number of people killed by guns each year is still far too high. There are several important pieces of legislation before the Senate that were designed to address gun violence. On April 24, 2001, Senator Reed introduced the ``Gun Show Background Check Act.'' This bill would close a loophole in the law which allows unlicenced private gun sellers to sell guns without conducting 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. The ``Use the National Instant Criminal Background System in Terrorist Investigations Act'' was introduced by Senator Kennedy and Schumer in the wake of September 11. This bill would reinstate the 90- day period for the FBI to retain and review NICS gun purchasing data records for irregularities and criminal activity. The need for this legislation was demonstrated when the Attorney General denied the FBI access to the NICS database to review gun sales to individuals they had detained in response to the terrorist attacks. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge the Senate to act on this legislation. Another important component of any strategy to reduce gun violence is preventing children from gaining access to firearms. Senator Durbin's ``Children's Access Prevention Act'' would hold adults who fail to lock up a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm with ammunition liable if the weapon is taken by a child and used to kill or injure him or herself 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. I am also a cosponsor of this important bill that would help to curb the thousands of preventable firearm deaths that occur each year. The statistics I mentioned support the argument that the Brady Law is working to prevent gun-related deaths. However, the number of gun- related deaths is still disturbingly high and more must be done. The bills I support are common sense approaches to gun-safety that deserve the attention of the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Chairman for his fairness and diligence in setting a goal for energy suppliers to meet a renewable portfolio standard that ensures power supply from a diverse mix of fuels and technologies. I thank the Chairman and his staff for working with my staff to answer questions concerning how the renewable portfolio standard would work. We understand the definition for qualifying facilities covers existing hydro facilities including pumped storage. This is important to the State of Michigan and we appreciate the clarification.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from New Mexico, the Chairman of the Energy Committee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues a question concerning the various new limits with respect to individual contributions to candidates in the bill. There is a general increase of the individual contribution limits, but there are also provisions that raise the possibility of additional increases if a candidate faces an opponent who spends a great deal of his or her personal fortune in a race. Can the sponsors discuss their analysis of how those provisions might affect Congress's authority to limit individual contributions?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, section 212 of the bill modifies reporting requirements for independent expenditures. Can the sponsors discuss the changes to current law that they intend to make in this section?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an important event that will be occurring in my home State of Michigan this weekend. On Saturday, hundreds of individuals will gather to celebrate the opening of the Consulate of Ukraine in Michigan. This consulate will be located at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Warren, MI. For a millennium, the Ukrainian people have successfully fought to maintain and preserve their unique culture, language, religion and identity. Such resiliency and perseverance stands as an inspiration for free people everywhere, and bears witness to the depth, character and vibrancy of Ukrainian culture. During the course of the past one hundred years, Michigan has become home to a vibrant Ukrainian community that currently numbers over 200,000 people, the vast majority of whom reside in the Detroit metro area. Many of the Ukrainians who moved to Michigan came here in search of freedom and the opportunities provided by our nation. The Ukrainian people who came to the United States left behind the horrors of Czarist Russia, the famines of 1932 and 1933, Nazi encroachment and Communist rule, but they did not leave behind their love for the nation and the culture they left behind. These immigrants played a vital role in the development of Detroit and our nation. Ukrainian-Americans worked in the plants and mills that made Detroit the Arsenal of Democracy. While some Ukrainians served the cause of freedom at home, others have fought bravely in our nation's military to preserve our freedom. Ukrainian-Americans have contributed greatly to the prosperity of this nation, while maintaining ties to their culture and heritage. The Consulate of Ukraine in Michigan will enhance and expand the ties which unite the United States and Ukraine. It will serve the people of Michigan, and will lead to increased social, cultural and economic interaction between the two nations. Many people worked hard to make this Consulate a reality. In particular, I would like to thank Borys Potapenko and Bohdan Fedorak for their efforts to make the opening of this Consulate possible. I am sure that my Senate colleagues will join me in celebrating the opening of the Ukrainian Consulate in Michigan.