Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, consideration of judicial nominees is among the most important duties of the Senate. I am pleased that four, well- qualified nominees to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will now be before the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to confirm them. Each of them has demonstrated a commitment to impartial justice and a thorough knowledge of the law. Each was recommended by an independent screening committee that Senator Stabenow and I have formed. It is broadly based and chaired by one of Michigan's truly outstanding lawyers, Eugene Driker. Each of the nominees has a distinguished background. Matthew Leitman served as a clerk to Justice Charles Levin on the Michigan Supreme Court and has extensive experience in private practice, focusing on complex commercial litigation, criminal defense, and appellate litigation. He has argued before State and Federal trial courts, as well as numerous appeals before State and Federal appellate courts, and has written a number of influential journal articles on important aspects of State and Federal law such as immigration and fraud enforcement. He has on many occasions been recognized by his peers as one of the most effective and knowledgeable litigators in our State. He is also dedicated to public service. He has been a pro bono honoree for the Eastern District of Michigan every year since 2008. Judith Ellen Levy worked in private practice and as a trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Detroit. She has conducted research and taught classes and seminars at the University of Michigan. Since 2000, she has served as an assistant U.S. attorney and Civil Rights Unit chief in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit. There, she is responsible for investigating and litigating civil rights cases on behalf of the United States, including fair housing, fair lending, disability access, and police misconduct cases, and for handling citizen civil rights complaints addressed to the office and conducting outreach regarding a variety of office programs. Ms. Levy has also received numerous awards for her dedication to community service, including several Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Certificates of Commendation and an award from the University of Michigan Council for Disability Concerns. Judge Laurie J. Michelson served as law clerk to the Honorable Cornelia G. Kennedy of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit and then for nearly 18 years worked in private practice in the areas of white-collar criminal defense and media and intellectual property law. She was sworn in as a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Michigan in February 2011. In private practice and as a magistrate judge, Judge Michelson has ably navigated some of the most complex areas of Federal law but has never lost sight of the fact that the law has a human impact. Judge Linda Vivienne Parker served as the director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights from 2003 to 2008. She also worked in private practice and served as the first executive assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan under U.S. attorney Saul A. Green from 1994 to 2000. In 2008, she was appointed to the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Wayne County. In addition to her criminal docket, Judge Parker serves as a judge in the Adult Drug Treatment Court. Judge Parker has dedicated her legal career to public service and has committed a great deal of time to serving and advocating for homeless families and teenage mothers. She served as the Chair of New Steps, an organization committed to providing services for economically disadvantaged new mothers in substance abuse recovery. Each of these nominees knows the law and is ready to bear the responsibilities of a Federal judge. I urge my colleagues to confirm their nominations so they can begin serving the people of the Eastern District of Michigan. I would yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I want to assure our colleagues that these nominees from Michigan have been selected--obviously by us-- following a very thorough screening committee with its broadly based recommendations. All four of these nominees are highly qualified, have judicial temperament, and Senator Stabenow and I can recommend them highly to the Senate. I thank my colleagues who are voting for cloture and then hope that the next vote after cloture we will see them confirmed. Again, we want to provide that assurance to our colleagues that this is a broadly based screening committee that we appoint which has recommended these nominees. I ask that all time be yielded back.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I was saddened to learn of the passing of Thomas Edward ``Ed'' Braswell, Jr., and I offer my sincerest condolences to his family. Two former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn and John Warner, joined in expressing their gratitude for Mr. Braswell's exemplary service at a recent committee hearing. Mr. Braswell joined the Armed Services Committee staff in 1953 and served as staff director and chief counsel to the committee under the leadership of two of the titans of the Senate--Richard Russell and John Stennis--for 23 years. Mr. Braswell served the committee from the beginning of the Eisenhower Presidency to the end of Gerald Ford's, helping see the committee through most of the Cold War and all of the Vietnam war and its aftermath. As chief counsel to the committee, Mr. Braswell helped to write the first of our annual National Defense Authorization Acts in 1962, and stayed on long enough to play a key role in the next 14 NDAAs, helping start a tradition of legislative accomplishment that continues to this day. The Armed Services Committee has been blessed over the years with a number of staff members who have served the committee for a period of decades, dedicating their careers to the committee, the Congress, our national security, and our men and women in uniform and their families. Our staffers work behind the scenes, providing us with the informed advice that we need as we consider the myriad of national security issues facing the Department of Defense and the Congress. The long hours and large workloads required for such a career often require significant sacrifices by both our staffers and their families. Without the advice and assistance of these committed public servants, the business of the Senate could not be carried out. Ed Braswell began his career by serving in the old Army Air Corps during World War II. He went on to go to Harvard Law School and worked briefly for the Department of Justice before joining the committee staff. In addition to his hefty commitments in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Braswell also made time to give back to his community. He served as the chairman of the Alexandria Planning Commission for more than 30 years and was instrumental in many of the commission's historic preservation efforts. I know my Senate colleagues join me in recognizing the mighty contributions of our staff members, both past and present. It is the hard work and dedication of individuals like Ed Braswell who make our work possible, and for that we are very grateful.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Senate takes another step forward in combating sexual assault in the military. Thanks to the leadership of Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, Fischer, and others, we can improve legislation which adds important new protections for victims of sexual assault and strengthens our ability to investigate and prosecute these crimes. This legislation we will be voting on bolsters and improves upon the provisions to combat sexual assault which were included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Among the reforms included in that bill and are now law were provisions which make it a crime to retaliate against a servicemember for reporting a sexual assault; that require every servicemember who reports a sexual assault to get a special victims' advocate who works for them, not for the command or for the court; and also this recently enacted law requires a higher level review of decisions not to prosecute an allegation of sexual assault. The reforms in the bill we will be voting on shortly are significant additions to that recently enacted law. First, this bill will be making an important change in how we prosecute sexual assault crimes by amending the Military Rules of Evidence to eliminate what is known as the good soldier defense, which has allowed servicemembers to argue that their good military performance is evidence of their innocence when charged with a crime. The military culture has been too slow to grasp the painful truth that even a successful professional can also be a sexual predator. This important reform in the bill we are considering will help to alter that culture. The bill also strengthens oversight of commanders' decisions on prosecution. Under reforms we passed last year, any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault case is reviewed by the next highest authority in the chain of command. When that decision contradicts a recommendation to prosecute from the commander's senior legal adviser, that review is done by the service Secretary, the highest civilian authority in each military service. The bill we are now going to consider would require the same review if a commander's decision not to prosecute conflicts with the recommendation of the senior prosecutor who would try the case. The bill also strengthens victims' input into prosecution decisions. The reforms we passed last year require that every victim of a military sexual assault be provided with a special victims' counsel--an attorney who works not for the commander or the court but for the victim. The bill before us requires that these victims' counsels advise victims on the advantages and disadvantages of seeing their case prosecuted in a military court or in a civilian court. The bill also requires that when victims express a preference for one or the other, that preference be given great weight. The bill before us includes other important new protections for sexual assault victims. For example, it allows victims of a sexual assault who leave the military to challenge the terms or the characterization of their discharge. The bill requires a confidential process enabling victims to seek a review of discharge decisions in order to look for possible instances of retaliation for their having reported a crime. The bill we will soon vote on also includes an important new provision to boost accountability for commanders. It requires their performance appraisals analyze whether they have established a command climate in which sexual assault allegations are properly and fairly handled and in which a victim can report a sexual assault without fear of reprisal or ostracism. These and other provisions in the McCaskill-Ayotte-Fischer bill add further weight to the important reforms included in the National Defense Authorization Act we adopted and was enacted very recently. The bill we will be voting on contains real important reforms which deserve not just our support and our votes but our thanks to Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, Fischer, and others for crafting these additional reforms because they will surely make a major contribution in protecting the troops who protect us.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first let me thank Senator McCaskill for her terrific leadership on this matter and Senator Ayotte and others on our committee who worked so hard to strengthen our laws against sexual assault and strengthen the ability of our commanders to act, as we did in our defense authorization bill and in the second bill we will be voting on today. We will be voting today on two bills regarding sexual assault in our military, and I believe the strongest, most effective approach we can take to reduce sexual assault is to hold commanders accountable for establishing and maintaining a command climate that does not tolerate sexual assault. In order to do that, we must maintain the important authority to prosecute sexual assaults that our military commanders now have, and we must add greater accountability for those commanders. The evidence shows that removing this authority from our commanders would weaken, not strengthen, our response to this urgent problem. That is why I believe the bill offered by Senator Gillibrand and others, though offered in the hope that it would strengthen our efforts against sexual assault, will in fact have the opposite effect. In the last year we have learned that in scores of cases during the period study, commanders prosecuted sexual assault cases that civilian attorneys had declined to prosecute. We have learned our military allies, whose policies have been cited in support of removing commanders' authority, generally made their changes to protect the rights of the accused, not the victim. We have learned there is no evidence that their changes resulted in any increase in reporting of assaults. So when the allies made the change--not to protect victims but to increase the rights of the accused--it did not lead to any increase in the reporting of assaults. On January 29, we received the conclusions of a report from the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel--an independent panel of legal and military experts of diverse backgrounds that was established by Congress to advise us on how to respond to this issue. A subcommittee of the panel addressed the role of commanders in prosecuting sexual assaults, the very issue we will be voting on today. Here is what that subcommittee concluded: There is no evidentiary basis at this time supporting a conclusion that removing senior commanders as convening authority will reduce the incidence of sexual assault or increase sexual assault reporting. The subcommittee reached that conclusion, despite the fact that many members began the process sympathetic--if not outright supportive--of the notion that we should remove the commanders' authority. Here is what one member of the subcommittee, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, said: I've changed my mind, because I was just listening to what we heard. I started out . . . thinking, why not change it and now I am saying, why change it. . . . Just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you are going to get the results you are looking for. . . . Congresswoman Holtzman authored the Federal rape shield law when she was a Member of Congress. Another member of the subcommittee, former Federal Judge Barbara Jones, said that if you remove this authority from commanders ``there is no empirical evidence that reporting is going to increase. . . . If I were persuaded that removing the convening authority would encourage victims to report then this would be a different story. But I am not persuaded of that.'' Listen to Mai Fernandez, the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. She was a member of the panel, and this is what she said about the proposal to remove commanders' authority to prosecute: When you hear it at first blush, you go, ``Yeah, I want to go with that.'' But when you hear the facts, like you would in a case, it just doesn't hold up. The women making those statements had no stars on their shoulders; they are not Pentagon insiders. They are members of the independent panel that we in Congress tasked with reporting to us on these issues. Underlying the crisis of sexual assault in our military is a problem of culture, a culture that has been too permissive of sexual misconduct, too unaware that a person who is successful in his professional life may also be a sexual predator. It is a culture too prone to ostracize or even act against those who report sexual assaults. The military has unique tools to address those problems. Foremost among those tools is the authority of the commander to establish a command climate by giving orders and enforcing discipline. At every time in our history when our military has faced such cultural challenges--such as the challenge of ending racial discrimination in the 1940s and 1950s or the challenge of ending don't ask, don't tell in our time--commanders with the authority to initiate courts-martial have been essential in achieving change. But we are not going to achieve change if--at the same time we demand of our commanders that they change the military culture to take on the sexual assault problem--we remove their most powerful tool to achieve that change. Senator Gillibrand's bill creates a new, separate disposition authority to deal with the sexual assault and other serious crimes. Our focus throughout this debate has been, rightly, on how to improve our approach to sexual assault. As a matter of fact, sexual assault would make up just a fraction of the cases this new disposition authority would deal with. In a letter to me, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica Wright recently reported in fiscal year 2012, the Department of Defense estimates it handled more than 5,600 cases that would be referred to this new disposition authority if it were created, but two-thirds of those cases did not involve sexual assault. The Gillibrand bill would shift dozens of our top military lawyers to a new authority that would spend only one-third of its time dealing with the problem we are trying to solve, the problem of sexual assault. The National Defense Authorization Act, which we enacted just a few months ago, provides our commanders with additional tools to meet this challenge and important new protections for victims. It provides victims of sexual assault with their own legal counsel specially trained to assist them. It makes retaliation a crime when that retaliation is against victims who report a sexual assault. It requires that the inspector general investigate all complaints of retaliation. It requires that any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault complaint will have an automatic review by a higher command authority--in nearly all cases by a general or flag officer and in certain cases by the service Secretary, the highest civilian authority in each service. The second bill we are going to vote on today--offered by Senators McCaskill, Ayotte, and others--provides additional protections to those we just added in the National Defense Authorization Act. The McCaskill- Ayotte bill ensures victims have a voice in deciding whether their cases will be prosecuted in the military or civilian justice system. Indeed, it requires that special victims' counsel established by the National Defense Authorization Act advise victims on the pros and cons of those two approaches. It requires that commanding officers be graded on their success or failure in creating a climate in which there is no tolerance for sexual misconduct and in which victims can come forward without fear. These additional protections in the McCaskill-Ayotte bill help us answer the key question of how can we best strengthen our protections against military sexual assault. I believe we do so by empowering victims and by holding our commanders accountable, but we threaten to weaken those protections if we undermine the authority of the very commanders who must be at the heart of the solution. Powerful evidence should lead us to the conclusion that we should not remove the authority of commanders to prosecute these cases. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Veterans Benefits Act, S. 1982, purports to place caps on future years' expenditures for Overseas Contingency Operations, ``OCO'', ostensibly to pay-for the added expenditures authorized by the bill. OCO is an emergency expenditure. Therefore, it does not count against the statutory budget caps. How much OCO, if any, will be needed in any given year is a determination made year by year in an appropriations bill and can only be made in that year, when we know what national security contingencies our military will actually face. If OCO caps could be used to pay for this bill, there would not be a need to waive the budget points of order against the bill. So, my vote to waive budget points of order is not a vote to use OCO caps as an offset, because they cannot be so used. Instead, my vote is a vote in favor of the worthwhile expenditures for veterans' benefits that S. 1982 authorizes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, no family should be forced to endure the loss of a child. In his memoir, President Dwight Eisenhower wrote that the loss of his 3-year-old son in early 1921 was ``the greatest disappointment and disaster in my life, the one that I have never been able to forget completely.'' That is why one of the fundamental expectations that Americans have of their government is also one of the most simple: to protect America's children; to ensure that our communities, our streets, and our families are safe. But sadly, Congress has done little to combat the gun violence that continues to devastate American children and families. Many have characterized horrific shootings affecting children in our Nation, such as the one which occurred in Newtown, CT, as somehow separate from mainstream American society. But recent studies have shown that such incidents cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Instead, as a recent Yale University study has established, they are part of a wider, disturbing trend of gun violence wounding and killing American children. This study found that every day in the United States, around 20 children sustain firearm injuries serious enough to require hospitalization. In 6 percent of those cases, the wounds prove to be fatal. Three quarters of child hospitalizations examined by the study were the result of unintentional or accidental injuries, often cases of children playing with an unsecured firearm. The study's rigorous clinical framework, combined with the reality that it is discussing children, makes for jarring reading. The researchers found, for example, that the most common firearm-inflicted injuries on children are open wounds, fractures, and internal injuries to the thorax, abdomen, or pelvis. Injuries to the nerves or spinal cord are also frequent. Traumatic brain injury resulting from gun violence is most often found in children younger than 5. These are not statistics of soldiers on a battlefield who volunteered to face danger. These are innocent children, in our communities, right here at home. This cycle of violence touches families around our Nation. Like in Detroit, where a recent Detroit News investigation showed that nearly 500 Detroit children have died in homicides since 2000, mostly as the result of gun violence. That investigation cited, as an example, the story of 12-year-old Kenis Green Jr. Last August, he was shot and killed on his front porch during his uncle's birthday party. In Texas, last October a 5-year-old boy shot himself with a .40 caliber pistol that his babysitter left unattended when she went to take a nap. In South Carolina, last December a 15-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed a 12-year-old while loading a magazine into a firearm. If almost anything in the world was responsible for sending 20 American children to the hospital every day, or was frequently involved in teenage suicides, or was inflicting traumatic brain injuries on toddlers, Congress would spring into action to address what can only be described as a public health crisis. We would enact comprehensive safety standards to stop the bloodshed. But when firearms are responsible for these horrific effects, inexplicably, we do nothing. I urge my colleagues to recognize this crisis and to act to protect our children from gun violence. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass gun safety measures already pending in this Congress to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and to make our society safer. We owe our children nothing less.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Inhofe to introduce a bill to incentivize the production and use of alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, NGVs, and plug-in- electric hybrids. Encouraging the production of alternative fuel vehicles will help to diversify our fuel mix, while reducing our reliance on imported oil and also reducing carbon emissions. In the U.S. alone, NGVs offset the use of nearly 360 million gallons of gasoline in 2011. We hope our bill will help increase that number. The moment is right to capitalize on the abundance of domestically sourced natural gas. Already, American manufacturers have benefited from the availability of domestically produced natural gas, reducing the cost of US-based production and contributing to the return of manufacturing to the United States. If we can expand the use of natural gas to fuel our vehicles, then American consumers can also benefit from this cleaner and cheaper domestic fuel. Michigan has become a leading innovator in advanced alternative fuel vehicles and is revolutionizing our transportation sector. As automakers in Michigan and elsewhere manufacture NGVs they face the dilemma often encountered when introducing an alternative fueled vehicle: what will come first, the NGV infrastructure or the vehicle itself? This is the classic chicken and egg question. Ethanol, Diesel and electric vehicles all faced this challenge when first introduced. Our bill will allow Michigan to continue to innovate and harness the power and benefits that domestically sourced alternative fuels have to offer this country. The benefits of expanding the number of natural gas and alternative fuel vehicles on our roads are numerous. Up to 90 percent of the natural gas used in the United States comes from the United States. We need to tap into this domestic resource for our transportation needs and take an aggressive approach to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Consumers should also have more choice and flexibility when it comes to fueling their vehicles. This bill allows for that. At the moment natural gas is about half the price of gasoline. Consumers should be able to benefit from these reduced prices. Furthermore, vehicles running on natural gas have 20-30 percent less CO2 tailpipe emissions than gasoline fueled vehicles. Because natural gas burns cleaner, it increases the life of the car. It has no lead or benzene or other chemicals that break down auto parts or dilute lubricants. These are all desirable reasons to encourage more NGV production. The use of natural gas vehicles is expanding among private fleets used by airports and transit agencies where refueling infrastructure is available. However, the chicken and egg dilemma is slowing the adoption of both dedicated and bi-fuel natural gas vehicles among light-duty passenger vehicles. Our legislation would incentivize both production and consumer demand for alternative fuel vehicles such as natural gas vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids by expanding regulatory incentives. It would also provide consumers with an added incentive to drive natural gas vehicles by giving them access to high occupancy vehicle, HOV, lanes. Giving consumers an additional benefit such as HOV access could help increase demand for these vehicles and the fueling stations that are necessary to support them. The President outlined in his State of the Union his goal to achieve energy independence through the use of alternative fuels. He specifically mentioned natural gas as the bridge fuel that can grow our economy, create jobs for the middle class, and reduce carbon pollution. I am pleased to introduce legislation today that takes a step toward meeting that goal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Inhofe to introduce a bill to incentivize the production and use of alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, NGVs, and plug-in- electric hybrids. Encouraging the production of alternative fuel vehicles will help to diversify our fuel mix, while reducing our reliance on imported oil and also reducing carbon emissions. In the U.S. alone, NGVs offset the use of nearly 360 million gallons of gasoline in 2011. We hope our bill will help increase that number. The moment is right to capitalize on the abundance of domestically sourced natural gas. Already, American manufacturers have benefited from the availability of domestically produced natural gas, reducing the cost of US-based production and contributing to the return of manufacturing to the United States. If we can expand the use of natural gas to fuel our vehicles, then American consumers can also benefit from this cleaner and cheaper domestic fuel. Michigan has become a leading innovator in advanced alternative fuel vehicles and is revolutionizing our transportation sector. As automakers in Michigan and elsewhere manufacture NGVs they face the dilemma often encountered when introducing an alternative fueled vehicle: what will come first, the NGV infrastructure or the vehicle itself? This is the classic chicken and egg question. Ethanol, Diesel and electric vehicles all faced this challenge when first introduced. Our bill will allow Michigan to continue to innovate and harness the power and benefits that domestically sourced alternative fuels have to offer this country. The benefits of expanding the number of natural gas and alternative fuel vehicles on our roads are numerous. Up to 90 percent of the natural gas used in the United States comes from the United States. We need to tap into this domestic resource for our transportation needs and take an aggressive approach to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Consumers should also have more choice and flexibility when it comes to fueling their vehicles. This bill allows for that. At the moment natural gas is about half the price of gasoline. Consumers should be able to benefit from these reduced prices. Furthermore, vehicles running on natural gas have 20-30 percent less CO2 tailpipe emissions than gasoline fueled vehicles. Because natural gas burns cleaner, it increases the life of the car. It has no lead or benzene or other chemicals that break down auto parts or dilute lubricants. These are all desirable reasons to encourage more NGV production. The use of natural gas vehicles is expanding among private fleets used by airports and transit agencies where refueling infrastructure is available. However, the chicken and egg dilemma is slowing the adoption of both dedicated and bi-fuel natural gas vehicles among light-duty passenger vehicles. Our legislation would incentivize both production and consumer demand for alternative fuel vehicles such as natural gas vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids by expanding regulatory incentives. It would also provide consumers with an added incentive to drive natural gas vehicles by giving them access to high occupancy vehicle, HOV, lanes. Giving consumers an additional benefit such as HOV access could help increase demand for these vehicles and the fueling stations that are necessary to support them. The President outlined in his State of the Union his goal to achieve energy independence through the use of alternative fuels. He specifically mentioned natural gas as the bridge fuel that can grow our economy, create jobs for the middle class, and reduce carbon pollution. I am pleased to introduce legislation today that takes a step toward meeting that goal.

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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Offshore Tax Evasion: The Effort to Collect Billions in Unpaid Taxes on Hidden Offshore Accounts.'' The hearing will continue the Subcommittee's examination of tax haven bank facilitation of U.S. tax evasion, focusing on the status of efforts to hold Swiss banks and their U.S. clients accountable for billions of dollars in unpaid U.S. taxes. Witnesses will include representatives from a Swiss bank and the U.S. Department of Justice. A witness list will be available Monday, February 24, 2014. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 26, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room G-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Max Baucus has never been afraid of the long haul. As the son of Montana ranchers, he knows the meaning of a long day's work. Before his 1996 election, he walked the length of Montana, more than 800 miles. In 2003, well past his 60th birthday, he ran a 50-mile ultra-marathon. For the last three decades, I have had the privilege of running a different sort of marathon with Max. We entered the Senate together after the election of 1978, and have served together since then. Today we mark the end of that marathon, as Senator Baucus prepares to become Ambassador Baucus and assume one of our Nation's most important diplomatic posts as ambassador to the People's Republic of China. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus has played a central role in some of the most important legislative accomplishments of recent decades. He has helped bring health care coverage to millions of Americans by working toward establishment of the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act. At the same time, he was worked tirelessly on issues of major importance to Montana, fighting to support his State's agriculture, and to support important educational and economic development initiatives. He moves from this important role to another. Our relationship with China is more important than ever. Decisions made today will affect that relationship for decades to come. We are seeking to cement a positive relationship, one in which China joins with our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific Region to support collective security and economic growth, and fosters stability through adhering to international norms. As the representative of the American people in Beijing, Max will be instrumental in getting and keeping the U.S.-China relationship on a positive footing. He will be in a crucial position to help open Chinese markets to American goods. I will miss Max as a friend and a colleague, but I am grateful for his willingness to take on this job, to continue serving his Nation in a new and challenging capacity. I yield the floor

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I will support final passage of the conference report of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. The conference report is particularly important to my home State of Michigan, where agriculture, the State's second-largest industry, supports one in four jobs. While the legislation presented contains many laudable provisions, I am deeply disappointed that the final conference report includes cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. SNAP benefits provide nutrition assistance to millions of families. It is distressing that we are reducing food stamp support for those families. While I oppose the SNAP cuts, the positives of this legislation are important enough that it deserves support. I applaud the work of my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, whose leadership as the chair of the Agriculture Committee helped craft this important compromise. This legislation makes critical reforms, reduces our deficit, and brings certainty to farmers and business owners. This legislation is more than just a farm bill. This legislation covers conservation, nutrition assistance, crop insurance, international food aid, forestry and so much more. This legislation makes significant modifications to help farmers better manage their risk by eliminating direct payments to farmers and replacing it with two new risk management programs. This will ensure farmers receive support only when there is a drop in farmers' income. This legislation also creates a new and voluntary insurance program to protect dairy farmers from losses. It also includes valuable reforms to disaster assistance. Of note is the creation of a permanent livestock disaster assistance program and retroactive coverage for orchardists and nursery growers who have recently been affected by droughts and winter storms. Importantly, this legislation also strengthens agriculture research programs, such as the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. This investment in specialty crops is vital to Michigan, which leads the nation in growing a wide variety of specialty crops including tart cherries, blueberries, cucumbers, dry black and red beans, and cranberries. I am pleased the conference agreement retains important conservation provisions that will help protect our water and air quality, restore fish and wildlife habitat, and improve flood control. The agreement consolidates 23 existing conservation programs into 13 programs which should streamline implementation. Further, conservation compliance is tied to crop insurance, which should ensure that basic conservation practices are implemented more broadly. Conservation provisions in the farm bill will help prevent soil erosion, reduce water runoff and pollution, and shift production away from sensitive lands. In addition, the conference agreement retains the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which should benefit Great Lakes water quality and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The bill also includes a 1-year extension of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes--PILT--Program, which provides funding to rural communities to help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. Each year, Michigan typically receives about $2.5 million under PILT, funding that is vital for providing essential services such as education, law enforcement, and emergency response.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support S. 1926, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. While the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act improved many aspects of the National Flood Insurance Program, it also resulted in a dire situation for a number of American families who suddenly found that their insurance rates would be doubled, tripled, or more. And it locked some families into homes they couldn't afford to insure but also couldn't afford to sell. Today's bill will fix many of these problems by allowing the use of the rate structure in place before passage of Biggert-Waters for some properties. In 4 years, when the Flood Insurance Program will be up for reauthorization, Congress will be able to look to the results of two new studies, called for in today's bill, for ways to make the Flood Insurance Program more equitable. While I am pleased that this fix is being implemented, I still have concerns about the Flood Insurance Program in general. Since the program's inception, Michigan residents have paid about six times more in premiums than they have received in claims. This inequity isn't fair for Michigan homeowners, and I believe we need to take action to resolve this issue. I had this inequity in mind in 2012 when we passed Biggert-Waters. I was hopeful that the bill's provisions allowing for the development of private flood insurance markets would result in lower, more equitable rates for Michigan residents. So it was important to me that any action we took today wouldn't make Michigan residents worse off than they are under current law. After consulting with my colleagues and FEMA, I have been assured that the bill before us would not prevent a homeowner's flood insurance rates from decreasing if that rate would have decreased under current law. I thank Senator Menendez for his assurances on this matter, and I appreciate him engaging in a colloquy with me that will be made part of the record. Again, the bill before us provides some relief for homeowners facing huge rate increases, while preserving rate decreases for homeowners that are currently eligible for them, and I am therefore supportive of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, every January brings hope that the New Year will be a happy and safe one. But, sadly, 2014 has already been marred by gun violence. To cite just a few examples, on January 9, a 16-year-old student at Liberty Technology Magnet High School shot a classmate in the thigh with a pistol. On January 14, a 12-year-old in New Mexico walked into his middle school's gym and opened fire with a shotgun, injuring two of his classmates as they waited to go to class. And on the evening of January 15, a man used a semi-automatic handgun to murder two people at an Indiana grocery store. He was about to kill another person just before police officers shot and killed him. Sadly, our Nation's epidemic of gun violence continues. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control has estimated that around 30,000 people in the United States die from gunshot wounds every year, and more than 60,000 people are injured by guns every year. A study also has shown that the firearm homicide rate in our Nation is 20 times higher than the combined rate of 22 other countries comparable in population. We live in a country where almost every week a community is wracked by a mass shooting, defined as an incident that claims at least four lives. In 2013, our Nation witnessed at least 25 such shootings. These occur all over our Nation, in places like Oklahoma City, where last August a man who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia stopped taking his medication and shot his mother, sister, niece, and nephew; in Ottawa, KS, where last April a man who had served prison time for attempted second-degree murder shot and killed 4 people; in Washington, DC, where a mentally deranged individual killed 12 and injured 8 at Washington's Navy Yard. Last December, just one day before the anniversary of the tragic Newtown school shooting which stole the lives of 27 people, 20 of them children, another school shooting occurred in Arapahoe, CO. This time, the perpetrator was an 18-year-old high school senior who entered his high school near Denver armed with 125 rounds of ammunition, a pump- action shotgun, a machete, and three incendiary devices. He critically injured a classmate, who has since tragically passed away, before taking his own life. While this may not qualify as a mass shooting, it is no less troubling. It is a testament to how disturbingly numb to gun violence our society has become that the sentiment ``it could have been worse'' is some form of relief. Today, America is a nation where parents are nervous to send their children to schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters because they are genuinely afraid that their kids might not come back. We live in a nation where toddlers find unsecured handguns in their family's homes and accidentally take lives. We live in a society where arguments and disputes turn into tragedies, all with one ill-considered pull of a trigger. Is this the kind of environment we want to live in? Is this what we want to leave for the next generation? Mr. President, it is my hope that this year, the procession of gun tragedies will begin to end. It is my hope that we will not be submerged this year in the horror of a mass shooting. But this hope will only be realized if Congress takes action to stop the gun violence plaguing our country. I urge my colleagues not to accept the status quo, where convicted felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill can get their hands on a deadly weapon at any time. I urge my colleagues to take steps toward ending this violence by passing commonsense legislation, supported by 90 percent of the American people, that would enact background checks on all gun sales. I urge my colleagues to work to ensure that our homes, our families, and our neighborhoods become safer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the State of Michigan has traditionally been a donor State with regard to the National Flood Insurance Program. Over the life of the program, Michigan residents have paid far more in premiums than they have received in benefits. It was my understanding that the flood insurance reform measure that was passed last year was designed to make the program more appropriately reflect the true flood risks for insured properties. With the phaseout of subsidies for some high-risk properties, many Michigan residents expected last year's reforms to lead to a better balance between donor and recipient States and potentially lower rates for Michigan residents whose properties are lower risk. I ask, is it correct that the bill before us, S. 1926, if passed, would not prevent rates from decreasing if that rate would have decreased under current law?

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you for your assurances.

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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Illinois for addressing this important issue. I appreciate both his assessment and his clarification of the relationship between the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act and the provision in the DOD Appropriations Act. Senator McCain and I have spent a long time working on this issue, and we believe that the reporting requirements and limitations established by section 2822 are in the best interests of the Department of Defense and the country. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Illinois to work with us to ensure that the Department abides by this provision.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President. The bill before us is an important compromise. Neither side got exactly what it wanted, but this legislation will provide much-needed certainty across the government. It keeps the government open for business and helps us turn a corner toward a more regular funding process. It represents much-needed relief from the cycle of crisis and shutdown which has dominated here for too long. This bill will fund a strong military, cutting edge research projects, and investments in our Nation's families and young people. For Michigan, the bill will provide much needed funding exciting new research at Michigan State University, for long overdue harbor dredging, to prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes, for new transportation projects, and for small airports. This bill isn't perfect. It shortchanges our financial regulators, zeroes out funds for some local communities with large amounts of Federal land, and leaves some other programs at lower levels than is required. Hopefully the PILT funding will be authorized in the farm bill. This bill is a significant improvement from years of shutdown threats and continuing resolutions that have put our Nation's government on autopilot. This is the first time in 3 years that we will have completed all 12 appropriations bills to properly allocate funding for all Federal agencies. For the military, the bill provides $487 billion in base DOD appropriations--the funding level established in the budget agreement-- and $85 billion for overseas contingency operations. As a result, it appears that DOD's operations and maintenance funding will be reduced by about $9 billion this year--a substantial reduction, but less than we feared would be the case. While this is a tight budget, I am more concerned at this point about the much greater reductions in DOD funding that will be required in fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal years. I am pleased that the Defense appropriations bill is consistent with key actions that we took in the National Defense Authorization Act, including provisions on Guantanamo detainees, measures to address sexual assault in the military, and the implementation of the New START Treaty. I also commend the Appropriations Committee for amending the military retired pay COLA change included in the budget agreement to exempt medical retirees and survivor benefit plan annuitants. The Armed Services Committee will be holding hearings to review this issue. While I have concerns about a few specific provisions, I believe that this is a good Defense appropriations bill and one that deserves our support. For cutting-edge research, the bill restores $1 billion of much- needed funding for the National Institutes of Health that was cut last year due to sequestration. This funding is needed to avoid further loss of promising research and make the investments needed to ensure that NIH can continue to support the next generation of scientists and fund cutting-edge research. For families and children, the bill will fully fund Head Start. Last year, 1,800 children across Michigan were forced out of early childhood programs due to sequestration, and the new funding in this bill is expected to restore and even grow this important early childhood program. In addition to Head Start funding, the bill also includes a significant increase in funding to educate children with disabilities. Now, I'd like to talk about a few specific projects that are especially important to Michigan. First, the bill includes the full $55 million requested for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2014 to help fund the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, FRIB, at Michigan State University. FRIB will let scientists, for the first time, create rare isotopes like those produced in supernovae. These isotopes will be studied, advancing our knowledge of the origins of elements and the universe, as well as furthering applied science fields like biomedicine, nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry. The facility will attract top scientists from around the globe, and is a key piece in attracting and training the next generation of nuclear scientists. FRIB will help keep Michigan, and the United States, at the forefront of cutting edge science. Second, the bill provides important funding for Great Lakes projects. I'm pleased that restoration and protection of our treasured Great Lakes will advance with the funding provided in the bill. Appropriators fully responded to a request from the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, which I co-chair by including $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative which strategically targets funding at the most significant problems facing the Great Lakes. In addition, the bill provides more than $30 million for the Corps of Engineers to fight Asian carp and other invasive species from getting into the Great Lakes. The bulk of that funding will be used for the electric dispersal barrier, which was designed to keep the carp from advancing through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. We need to recognize that this barrier is only a short-term fix, however, and focus on separating the two basins for a permanent solution. I'm pleased the omnibus includes $3 million for the Corps to refine its design of such a solution and I will press to speed its implementation. I'm also glad the bill includes language that I requested that would authorize the Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to prevent invasive species from dispersing into the Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection to the Mississippi River basin. I'm also pleased the bill increases funding by about $12 million from last year for dredging of Great Lakes harbors and channels, operation and maintenance of locks, and repair of breakwaters. The Great Lakes navigation system handles over 160 million tons of cargo, and it is critical this system operates effectively to support our economic growth and international competitiveness. I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to restore the payments in lieu of taxes, which are used for such critical needs as public schools, emergency response, and road maintenance. The bill also restores funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure by providing about $2.4 billion to states for investing in these vital water projects, which will both protect public health and our water resources. Finally, this bill includes important provisions to help our State's transportation system. I am pleased the bill again includes language allowing the M-1 Rail project in Detroit to use private funds as a match to federal dollars. In addition, I am pleased that the bill provides funding that for the FAA to keep open contract control towers at the W.K. Kellogg Airport in Battle Creek, the Coleman A. Young Airport in Detroit, and the Sawyer International Airport in Marquette. This bill is an important compromise, and I am glad that Democrats and Republicans, from the House and Senate, were able come together to craft this measure.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to proceed as though in morning business for 15 minutes, but prior to that I be able to yield to Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes and that not be counted against my time; and that I then be recognized after he is done.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the current situation in Iraq is deeply disturbing. The violence there is a human tragedy, and the resurgence of Al Qaeda-affiliated forces in Fallujah and elsewhere represents a threat not just to the people of Iraq but to our own security and that of our friends and allies in the region. So I very much share in concerns many of us have expressed about recent developments in Iraq. The United States has announced it will expedite military assistance, including delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles and HELLFIRE missiles. That is appropriate. The administration has stepped up intelligence sharing to help Iraq security forces in their fight. That is appropriate. The administration is holding ongoing conversations with Iraq about other ways in which the United States might assist, and that is appropriate. One form that assistance might take is in the sale of weapons such as attack helicopters to Iraq. The issue is not whether such aircraft would help Iraq fight violent extremists; they would. The question is whether the Maliki government would use those aircraft, for instance, only against violent extremists, and whether we receive credible assurances that such weapons will be used to target Iraq's real enemies and not to further sectarian political objectives. With credible assurances, it would be appropriate to provide Iraq such assistance. What it is wrong to do is to blame the Obama administration for the political failures of Iraqi leaders. Blaming the administration for failures and decisions by the Iraqi Government ignores not only history, it also leads to policy approaches that would not be in our interest or in the interests of the Iraqi people. For example, here is what Senator McCain and Senator Graham said recently: When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever. That argument ignores some important history. First, it ignores the fact that the 2011 withdrawal date for U.S. forces in Iraq was not set by President Obama but by President Bush. In December of 2008, just before he left office, President Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi Government that called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities in 2009, and the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. President Bush himself, standing next to Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad as they announced their agreement, said, ``The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq.'' So the 2011 withdrawal date was set by President Bush, not by President Obama. As to whether our military commanders objected to our withdrawal from Iraq, here is what happened: While there was no mention from President Bush or Prime Minister Maliki when they announced their agreement of a U.S. troop presence after 2011, Secretary Gates and others discussed the possibility of some U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011. Then, during 2011, the Obama administration entered into negotiations with the Iraqi Government with the goal of keeping some U.S. troops, in limited roles, in Iraq to assist Iraqi security forces after the 2011 withdrawal date set by President Bush. I and many other Members of Congress supported the idea of continuing a smaller, specialized U.S. military assistance force. While there was disagreement in the administration over the size of a residual force, what decided the issue wasn't how many troops would remain; rather, it was the Iraqi Government's refusal to agree to legal protections for U.S. troops, whatever their number. In the absence of such protections, it was the opinion of the military leaders that no U.S. forces should remain in Iraq, regardless of whether the number was 3,500 or 20,000. At a November 2011 Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked General Dempsey, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the importance of legal protections for our troops as part of any agreement to keep troops in Iraq after 2011. This is what the questions and answers were: Sen. Levin: Are you willing to have those forces remain without an agreement relative to immunity for those troops? Gen. Dempsey: No, sir, I am not. . . . It was the recommendation, advice and strong belief of the Joint Chiefs that we should not leave service men and women there without protections. Sen. Levin: And why is that? Gen. Dempsey: Because the--of the many institutions in Iraq that are still evolving and immature. The Iraqi judicial system is certainly among those. And we did not believe it was--it was appropriate, prudent to leave service men and women without judicial protections in a country that still had the challenge, as we know it has, and a very immature judicial system. Later in that same hearing, I asked General Dempsey if our commanders on the ground in Iraq shared that opinion. He responded: It was the topic of many secure video teleconferences and engagements person to person. . . . I can state that they also believed we needed the protections, both General Austin and General Mattis, in order to leave our troops there. Before our committee in February of 2013, General Austin, our commander on the ground in Iraq during the 2011 negotiations, testified that there were extensive discussions with Iraq about a continuing U.S. troop presence. He testified: We worked with the Iraqi leadership all the way up until the point in time when they decided they weren't going to be able to give us the protections that we needed to keep our troops there. As Secretary Panetta put it before our committee, the key moment in the negotiations was ``once [the Iraqis] made the decision that they were not going to provide any immunities for any level of force that we would have there.'' So our military leaders were very much unwilling to leave any U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq if they could be subjected to the vicissitudes of the Iraqi judicial system. It is therefore wrong to say that the withdrawal took place ``over the objections of our military leaders.'' It was Iraq's refusal to grant important legal protections to our troops that decided the matter. This criticism of the administration's Iraq policy also understates the importance of factors that have come to the forefront since the 2011 withdrawal. Foremost among these has been an Iraqi Government that has repeatedly pursued a sectarian agenda, disenfranchised Sunni Iraqis, failed to address Kurdish concerns over the status of Kirkuk and the hydrocarbons law, and alienated moderate Shia Iraqis who seek a more democratic and inclusive government. Prime Minister Maliki's governance shortfalls has stoked the sectarian tensions on which Al Qaeda and other extremist groups try to capitalize. Many Members of Congress have made clear that it is extremely difficult to support more robust assistance to the Iraqi Government unless the Iraqi leadership places the good of their country ahead of sectarian politics and unless it produces a practical strategy for governing Iraq on a more inclusive and less sectarian basis. For example, last October, I joined five colleagues--Senators McCain, Menendez, Corker, Inhofe, and Graham--in writing to President Obama, expressing our concern about deteriorating conditions in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that our October 29, 2013, letter be printed in the Record.