Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have enacted the National Defense Authorization Act every year for the last 48 years. We need to do the same thing this year. This year's bill would continue the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, the bill would extend over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by active-duty and reserve military personnel. The bill would authorize continued TRICARE coverage for eligible dependents of servicemembers up to the age of 26. The bill will improve care for our wounded warriors by addressing inequities in rules for involuntary administrative separations based on medical conditions and requiring new education and training programs on the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in wounded warrior units, and it will authorize the service secretaries to waive maximum age limitations to enable certain highly qualified enlisted members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to enter the military service academies. The bill would also include important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops the equipment and support that they will continue to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability to rapidly acquire and field new capabilities in response to urgent needs on the battlefield by expanding DOD's authority to waive statutory requirements when urgently needed to save lives on the battlefield. The bill will fully fund the President's request for $11.6 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan police--growing the capabilities of these security forces to prepare them to take over increased responsibilities for Afghanistan's security by the July 2011 date established by the President for the beginning of reductions in U.S. forces at that time. The bill will extend for one more year the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our troops withdraw to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, providing an important tool for our commanders looking to accelerate the growth and capability of these security forces. The bill also includes important legislative provisions that would promote the Department of Defense cybersecurity and energy security efforts--two far-reaching initiatives that should help strengthen our national defense and our Nation. If we fail to act on this bill, we will not be able to provide the Department of Defense with critical new authorities and extensions of existing authorities that it needs to safeguard our national security. For example, without this bill, the Department of Defense will either lose the authority it has requested to support counter-drug activities of foreign governments, use premium pay to encourage civilian employees to accept dangerous assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide assistance to the Yemeni counterterrorism unit. A failure by the Senate to provide these important authorities could have serious consequences for the success or failure of ongoing military operations around the world. I recognize this bill includes a handful of contentious provisions on which there is disagreement in the Senate. Some of those provisions I support and others I objected to and voted against in committee. One of those provisions is the one that would repeal don't ask, don't tell 60 days after the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that implementation of repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention in the Armed Forces. The Armed Services Committee held two excellent hearings last week to consider the final report of the working group that reviewed the issues associated with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. The report concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces without being forced to conceal their sexual orientation would present a low risk to the military effectiveness, even during a time of war, and that 70 percent of surveyed servicemembers believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence at all. General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified that the presumption underpinning don't ask, don't tell is that ``the presence of a gay or lesbian servicemember in a unit causes an unacceptable risk to good order and discipline.'' Then he said, ``After reading this report, I don't believe that's true anymore, and I don't believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that's true.'' After considering the report, Secretary of Defense Gates urged Congress to pass this legislation this year, so that the repeal of don't ask, don't tell could be implemented in a well-prepared and well- considered manner, rather than by abrupt judicial fiat, which he described as ``by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario [he] can imagine.'' To the extent that some of the service chiefs expressed concern about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, their concerns focused on the timing of the repeal and adequacy of time to prepare for implementation, rather than on repeal itself. Secretary Gates testified that he ``would not make his certification until [he] was satisfied, with the advice of the service chiefs, that we had in fact mitigated, if not eliminated to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion and effectiveness.'' All of the service chiefs testified that they were comfortable with the ability to provide military advice to Secretary Gates and have that advice heard. The only method of repeal that places the timing of the repeal and the control of implementation in the hands of the military and the Department of Defense is the provision contained in this bill. By contrast, if don't ask, don't tell is repealed by a court decision, the service chiefs will have no influence over the timing of repeal or the implementation of the repeal. Despite differing views over this and other provisions where there are differences of opinion, we should not deny the Senate the opportunity to take up this bill, which is so essential for the men and women in the military, because we disagree with some provisions of the bill. These are legitimate issues for debate, and I believe the Senate should debate this. But the only way we can debate and vote on these issues is if the Senate proceeds to the bill. The disputed provisions can be addressed through the amendment process. Madam President, as you well know, this is a crucial matter for resolution. Our Presiding Officer has played an instrumental role in getting the don't ask, don't tell issue before this body and before the country. I commend her for that. We need to resolve it. The only way to resolve it is to get to the bill. We currently have 50,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground in Iraq and roughly twice that many in Afghanistan. While there are some issues on which we may disagree, we all know that we must provide our troops with the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service. This bill runs some 850 pages. The House bill--the counterpart bill-- runs more than a thousand pages. Even if we get 60 votes today to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and even if we are able to consider amendments and pass this bill in a few days, it will be possibly an insurmountable challenge to work out all of the differences with the House. Over the last 10 years, it has taken an average of 75 days to conference the Defense authorization bill with the House after we pass it. If we don't proceed on this bill this week, then invoking cloture sometime next week--even if we can do it--would be a symbolic victory. I don't believe there would be enough time to hammer out a final bill before the end of the session. I don't believe in symbolic victories. This bill is a victory for the people in uniform. It is essential for the people in uniform. We should not act symbolically in their name and for their sake; we should act in reality. But the only way this will be real, and that the repeal of don't ask, don't tell--assuming we continue to keep it in the bill-- will be real is if we proceed to this bill this week. We cannot and should not delay this vote any longer. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the time on the quorum that I will call for be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let's start with a basic fact: the legislation we soon will vote on represents a tax cut for every single American taxpayer. From the poorest to the wealthiest, every single American taxpayer will pay less in taxes under this legislation than they will pay if we do not act. But prudently, given the concerns all of us profess about our fiscal situation, this legislation draws a line. While every taxpayer would enjoy a tax cut, that cut would only apply to income under $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals. This is important for two reasons. First, it focuses on the middle-class families that were struggling to get ahead even before reckless mortgage lenders and Wall Street traders drove our economy into a ditch. Second, drawing that line respects the need to address our fiscal situation. Extending the cuts for income above the $250,000 level would increase our budget deficit by $818 billion over the next 10 years. Let's focus on that for a moment. Just a month ago, we concluded a political campaign. During that campaign and after the votes were counted, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly characterized that election as essentially a referendum on the deficit and jobs. In a joint opinion column published in the Washington Post, Republican leaders in the House and Senate wrote that the message from voters is, ``They want us to stop the spending binge, cut the deficit.'' So what's the first major policy position taken by our Republican colleagues after that election? It is a proposal to increase the budget deficit by $818 billion. They say the deficit is important to them but apparently not so important that they would give up additional tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in order to cut it. This change of heart extends beyond the question of tax cuts and the deficit. In that same opinion article, the Republican leaders say voters in 2010 told us ``they want both parties to work together on policies that will help create the conditions for private sector job growth.'' Well, here is our chance. This legislation includes an extension of unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs in this recession. There is no policy option more effective in helping ``create the conditions for private sector job growth'' than extending unemployment benefits. Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said before the Budget Committee on September 28: The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the unemployed. Let me repeat that: The largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost would arise from a temporary increase in aid to the unemployed. Director Elmendorf isn't alone. Economist Mark Zandi told the Finance Committee earlier this year: No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past two years than emergency UI benefits. These economists and others, across the ideological spectrum, base these judgments on empirical studies and complex statistical models. But the reason what they say is true comes down to common sense. If you are without a job, you don't have much money not just money to spend on luxuries but money to spend on food and shelter for yourself and your family. So the relatively small amount of money you receive in an unemployment check almost certainly will go to pay for those necessities. You have little choice but to spend it. And that spending helps generate economic activity. A wealthy taxpayer, by contrast, has the luxury of taking the money from a tax cut and putting it in his or her pocket a luxury they are likely to exercise, meaning that tax cut for the wealthy does little to stimulate the economy. The legislation we will soon vote on includes other important provisions that would fulfill the Republican leaders' self-proclaimed goal of working together to stimulate job growth. It would permanently reduce capital gains tax rates, and permanently extend the expanded child tax credit for working families. It makes relief from the marriage tax penalty permanent. It makes permanent provisions that reduce taxes for small businesses, freeing up capital for those businesses to generate new jobs, and extends temporary provisions to help small businesses such as exclusions for small business capital gains and increased deductions for start-up ventures. It continues initiatives to boost investment in advanced energy technologies that are increasing employment in my state and others. It extends the research and development tax credit. It repeals a provision of the Affordable Care Act that added to small business reporting requirements, a provision that I would think our Republican colleagues can support. In short, if you say you ``want both parties to work together on policies that will help create the conditions for private sector job growth,'' and if you say you want to rein in the deficit, you should support this legislation. And if you say you support more jobs and less deficit, and then vote against this legislation, you are guilty, at best, of a real inconsistency. So I will vote in favor of the cloture motion on the Baucus amendment. And I should add that, if Senator Baucus's amendment fails, I will vote in favor of Senator Schumer's amendment. If we cannot agree that those making over $250,000 a year can endure a slightly higher tax burden at this time of great concern over deficits, surely we all can agree that those enjoying incomes over $1 million a year are able. We should not, and I hope we would not, reject tax cuts for the vast majority of middle-income Americans, and even most high-income Americans, in order to pursue tax cuts for those who are least in need. I urge my colleagues to support cloture so that we can get this much needed tax relief to middle-class families and small businesses and contribute to private sector job growth and a growing economy. It is time for our Republican colleagues to back up their rhetoric with their votes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as our economy struggles to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression, we must look at all ways to create jobs here at home. One obvious way to create jobs is to sell more products to overseas markets. That's why President Obama has announced the goal of doubling U.S. exports by the year 2015. That is an admirable goal and one that I support. To achieve that goal we have to examine our trade policies and change them when they are not working. That is surely what we need to do when it comes to the so-called U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and automotive trade. This agreement, still being negotiated, would perpetuate an unlevel playing field that unfairly disadvantages U.S. automotive exports. One of the reasons the agreement has not been brought before the U.S. Congress for approval is because the agreement is skewed in favor of Korean automakers. The Bush administration made a major error in how it approached the growing field of electric vehicles during treaty negotiations. The agreement would allow for a 10 year phase-out of the 8 percent Korean tariff on hybrid electric passenger vehicles and the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff. This is not a fair deal for U.S. electric car exports. It's bad enough that the current Korean electric car tariff is more than three times the U.S. tariff. This agreement would lock in place for 10 years Korea's electric car tariff advantage as it is phased out. Why in the world would we agree to that? It is as if you beat me up eight times a day and I beat you up two times a day and you expect me to be happy when you reduce that beating to seven times per day--that is still not much of a deal for me. It is a stubborn thing this image some people have of free trade. It is like a blind faith belief that any trade agreement is automatically good for the United States. This seems to hold true no matter how many American jobs may have been lost as a result of unfair trading practices by our trading partners and no matter how bad a deal a specific free trade agreement might be for certain sectors in the United States. The response always seems to be the same for those that criticize an unbalanced free trade agreement: they call the critics protectionists. The protectionism enmeshed in the U.S.-Korea trade relationship is protectionism by Korea. Until 1989 Korea did not even allow imported autos into its market. Once it did officially allow imported vehicles into its market, Korea found other, less visible ways of keeping them out, including maintaining tariff and nontariff barriers, such as discriminatory taxes based on engine size, unique standards, inadequate regulatory transparency, and inadequate ability of stakeholders to provide input at an early stage into the development of regulations and standards. When it comes to automotive trade with Korea, the numbers tell the story. Korea has free unfettered access to the U.S. market and we have extremely limited access into Korea's market. Last year Korea shipped 476,833 autos to the United States. And while Korea relies on exports to support its domestic auto makers, Korea remains one of the most closed auto markets in the world. In a market of almost 1.5 million annual vehicle sales, the U.S. exported just 5,878 autos to Korea last year. And it's not just American autos that are being kept out. Vehicles made in Korea account for 94 percent of the Korean market--only 6 percent of vehicles sold in Korea are imports. That is lower than every other developed country except Japan. In the U.S., over 41 percent of our auto market is made up of imports. In Germany that number is 55 percent, in Mexico it is 57 percent, and in Spain, Canada and Italy it is over 70 percent or higher. Korea's protected automotive market provides a huge source of profit and jobs for Korea and, in contrast, it is a huge source of trade deficits and job loss for the United States. About 74 percent of the $10.6 billion U.S. trade deficit with South Korea is in automotive trade. So to those who say we are protectionist when we complain about this, I respond that we are not the protectionists and we have not protected our automotive market. The nearly 500,000 Korean-made vehicles that come into the U.S. market each year validate this point, as does our 2.5 percent auto tariff compared to Koreas 8 percent auto tariff and numerous non-tariff barriers that keep our vehicles out of Korea. Despite efforts by the U.S. Government for over a decade to open the Korean auto market, Korea has successfully kept its market closed. Auto-specific agreements negotiated in 1995 and 1998 failed to make any progress in opening Korea's automotive market. Although the previous agreements were intended to sweep away some of the most overt non- tariff barriers, Korea quickly replaced them. For instance, the year after the 1998 auto-specific agreement was signed committing Korea to, ``Not take any new measures that directly or indirectly adversely affect market access for foreign passenger vehicles'' Korea introduced three new and unique auto safety standards: front tow hook, headlamp, and remote keyless entry. In the 3 years after that, Korea introduced seven more auto safety and emissions regulations. And in the 4 years after that, Korea introduced another seven, and the list continues. Our protests were for naught. Any trade agreement with South Korea should level the playing field for U.S. auto exports. Unfortunately, the pending agreement, reached more than 3 years ago but now being renegotiated, leaves South Korea with the effective ability to use rules and regulations to continue limiting automotive imports into the Korean marketplace. Korea has used such rules and regulations before to discriminate against imported vehicles and they will be used again unless we have a strong mechanism to remove them. This agreement does not include such a mechanism to deal with any new nontariff barriers, such as auto safety standards or emissions regulations that Korea could introduce once the current draft agreement is entered into and approved by the Congress. The agreement is strongly opposed by Ford and Chrysler because the agreement does not ensure that South Korea will not take measures to impede access of imported U.S. made cars. GM is neutral on the agreement because it gained access to the Korea market by buying Daewoo, not by exporting cars to Korea from the United States. Ensuring fair access to the Korean market would have an important impact on our auto industry's drive to regain its competitive strength and health. We need to fight for American jobs, not let them go overseas as a result of poorly negotiated trade agreements. We need to find a way to gain meaningful access to Korea's auto market and so far this trade agreement has not achieved that goal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Coburn has proposed an amendment to the badly needed food safety legislation now before the Senate that seeks to end congressionally directed spending, or earmarks. Senator Coburn described his amendment as an attempt to get spending under control, but it fails the test of accomplishing that goal and fails to meet Congress's constitutional obligation to exercise the power of the purse. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the United States places the power of Federal spending in the Congress, the branch of government most directly connected to the people. The power of the purse is great, and therefore accountability for the exercise of that power should be great as well. Our greater responsiveness in Congress to immediate public needs is essential. If the Coburn amendment passes, we would be barred from bringing that judgment to bear on some of the most pressing issues of the day. Instead, the executive branch--which is, in practice, the most bureaucratic and least responsive branch--would control these decisions. For example, under Senator Coburn's proposal, only the executive branch would have the power to initiate funding for disaster relief. Measures to appropriate funds in response to disasters would be prohibited because they would dedicate funding to specific locations. So, had this measure been in place when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Congress would have been powerless to react. Similarly, had this restriction been in place when a Mississippi River bridge collapsed in Minnesota in 2007, Congress could not have appropriated the $195 million it set aside for repair and reconstruction. This measure also would prevent Members from addressing the urgent needs of our communities. I and other Members from Great Lakes States have urged the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to address the growing threat that Asian carp will make their way from the Mississippi River watershed into the Great Lakes. These invasive species of fish would devastate the lakes, doing enormous harm to our States' economies. So long as the Army Corps continues to underfund this important work, only the action of Congress can prevent an economic disaster. I would argue that each of these expenditures is important and necessary. But the wisdom or folly of these decisions lies in the merits of the projects themselves, not in the manner by which they were funded. Allowing the Congress to make these decisions allows the voters to judge them on their own merits, to reward their representatives when they make wise choices, and to render judgment in the voting booth when they do not. Senator Coburn is rightly concerned about the long-term fiscal condition of the government. But it has been repeatedly pointed out, despite the fiction surrounding this issue, that this amendment would do nothing to improve our fiscal situation. Year after year, Congress works within the top line of budgets submitted by the President, readjusting priorities without increasing total spending. For this reason, the Coburn amendment would not reduce spending levels; it would simply shift greater authority for deciding how money is spent from the legislative branch to the executive. There are two ways to close our fiscal gap. We can reduce spending or we can increase revenue. Banning congressionally directed spending does neither. It would create the impression that we have taken a step toward fiscal responsibility, without making any of the difficult choices that reducing the deficit will require. I applaud Senator Coburn's desire to address our debt. But this measure fails to do so and in the process abdicates our constitutional responsibilities. So I will oppose this amendment and urge our colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, each year, 76 million Americans are sickened by foodborne illness. More than 300,000 become so sick they must be hospitalized. More than 5,000 die of their illness. These statistics are deeply worrisome. And behind each number is a family dealing with tragic loss or expensive hospital bills or concern for a sick child. The situation cries for action, which is why I support passage of the legislation we are now considering, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. This legislation seeks to address major deficiencies in the system that protects Americans from foodborne illnesses. It includes provisions recommended by Republicans and Democrats, by government experts and outside groups. It should have strong bipartisan support. The bill would give FDA authority to initiate food recalls even when producers of unsafe foods refuse to do so voluntarily. It would strengthen FDA's ability to trace harmful products to their source. It would crack down on the unsafe food imports that have been the source of many health-risk incidents. It would increase FDA's authority to inspect food-producing facilities to prevent illnesses. And it would require greater diligence on the part of those producers to prevent foodborne illnesses and other health threats. Passing this legislation will make our food safer and protect Americans from harm. I will vote to approve it, and I hope for a strong bipartisan vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as Members of the Senate, we work every day with public servants who fill an amazing variety of roles, and when one of those servants fills his or her role with exceptional skill and dedication, they deserve our praise. One such public servant, Jim Corless, the superintendent of Keweenaw National Historical Park in Michigan, is preparing to retire after nearly 30 years of Federal service, the last 3 of which have come in helping build one of the most unique national parks in the Nation. Jim Corless came to Michigan's Copper Country from Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park in Skagway, AK, making him that rare person who moved south to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This was good fortune for those of us who care about preserving the history of Michigan's copper mining era because Jim's career had prepared him well. As a trained historian, Jim had already helped bring alive the drama of our Nation's founding, the frontier grit of the earliest Texas settlers, the history of Ozark waterways in Arkansas, and the growth of textile manufacturing in Massachusetts in parks from coast to coast. Preserving the legacy of Michigan's copper mining industry has long been a priority for many of us Michiganians. The Keweenaw Peninsula contained perhaps the world's richest and purest deposits of copper, and from native peoples 7,000 years ago to miners in the 19th and 20th centuries, those deposits have had profound effects on human society across our Nation and on the peninsula. The park established in 1992 to preserve that history is like no other in the Nation. Unlike the vast majority of National Park Service facilities, in which the government owns and controls the land and associated assets of the park, Keweenaw National Historical Park is an unusual public-private cooperative venture. Private citizens, nonprofit groups, and local governments own nearly all the park's historic assets, and they are managed cooperatively, with the Park Service providing coordination, advice and funding. That calls for a superintendent who is part historian, part manager, and part diplomat. Jim has skillfully served all three roles. He has worked closely with officials at the Environmental Protection Agency to simultaneously preserve the industrial legacy of the copper mines while remediating the environmental impact of that legacy. And he has taken a leading, but always cooperative, role in bringing together the various community interests who have a stake in the park and its growth. Just one example of this work is his work to help create the Quincy Smelter Steering Committee to help preserve one of the park's most important historic resources. Jim describes Keweenaw National Historical Park as a ``parknership,'' and that illustrates the thoughtful way in which he has approached his job over the last 3 years. All of us who care about Michigan's vital mining past are grateful for his exceptional service, and we all wish him and his wife Mary Jane the very best as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Senator Carte P. Goodwin of West Virginia for his service. When he was sworn into office in July, Senator Goodwin assumed the seat previously held by the Chamber's longest serving and one of the most distinguished Senators in our history--Senator Robert C. Byrd, who passed away on June 28. Before arriving in the Senate, Senator Goodwin already had an impressive political career. As chief counsel to West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, Carte Goodwin led the effort to reform mine safety rules in the wake of the Sago and Aracoma coal mine disasters that killed 14 coal miners. He also served as the chairman of the West Virginia School Building Authority. Senator Goodwin serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which I chair. As a committee member, Senator Goodwin has helped pass the National Defense Authorization Act out of committee. He has also contributed to hearings overseeing the status of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Senator Goodwin's time in the Senate draws to a close, I thank him for his service to our country, and I wish him and his family the very best.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, next week, scientists, researchers, industry leaders and advocates from around the world will gather in Detroit, MI, for the sixth annual World Stem Cell Summit. By bringing together experts in medicine, genetics, business, and economic development, the summit will give a boost to global efforts aimed at finding cures for debilitating and deadly diseases, as well as bringing the important economic benefits of bioscience. By choosing Detroit as the site of this year's summit, the organizers have made a powerful statement about Michigan's commitment to this vital area of scientific exploration. In 2008, Michigan voters approved a referendum protecting the ability of Michigan researchers to engage in research involving stem cells. This wise decision has already paid significant dividends. Researchers at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and other Michigan institutions have made significant progress even in that short time. UM has established a consortium to aid the search for treatments and cures, and a UM researcher, Dr. Eva Feldman, last year obtained FDA approval for the first ever clinical trials on a stem cell therapy for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease. Researchers at MSU are advancing work on stem cell treatments for Parkinson's disease. At Wayne State, scientists are examining how stem cells can be made more useful for a wide variety of medical purposes. These and other institutions across the State are working hard to save and improve lives, and I congratulate them for their efforts. Michigan researchers will join others from across the country and around the world at next week's summit. They will examine not only the latest scientific advances but important subjects such as how stem cell research can contribute to economic development efforts, another area in which Michigan has quickly become a leader. I would like to welcome those who will travel to Detroit next week and thank them for the opportunity to show what Michigan has accomplished in the stem cell field. I wish them every success as they seek to protect the health and save the lives of the millions of people coping with diseases that stem cell research might one day cure.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in May 2010, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on how known or suspected terrorists are taking advantage of lax Federal laws to purchase firearms. The committee discussed two legislative proposals, both of which I have cosponsored, to address this weakness in current law: the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, S. 1317, and the PROTECT Act, S. 2820. S. 1317 would close the loophole in current law--known as the terror gap--that prevents the Federal Government from stopping the sale of firearms or explosives to a known or suspected terrorist--unless that individual falls under another disqualifying category. S.2820 would lengthen the time--from the current duration of 90 days to 10-years the FBI is required to keep gun transfer records that involve a purchaser on the terrorist watch list. Unfortunately, despite broad support from the law enforcement community, Congress has failed to pass these commonsense pieces of legislation. On September 22, 2010, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing entitled ``Nine Years After 9/11: Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland.'' At this hearing, I questioned FBI Director Robert Mueller about the FBI's efforts to prevent individuals on the terrorist watch list from acquiring firearms and explosives. In regard to S. 1317, I asked Director Mueller if he had an opinion as to whether or not persons on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns and explosives. I was pleased to hear Director Mueller's response that ``all of us would want to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and/or persons on the terrorist watch list.'' This response echoes the support given at a November 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing by Attorney General Eric Holder, the Nation's top law enforcement official, for legislation to close the terror gap. In regard to S. 2820, I asked Director Mueller whether he would like to be able to keep firearm transfer records for longer than 90 days for persons on the terrorist watch list. Again, I was glad to hear that Director Mueller favors a longer period of record retention across the board, including for those persons who are on the terrorist watch list. According to Director Mueller, ``retention of records gives us an ability to go back, when we identify some person, and determine whether or not there's additional information we would have in those records that would enable us to conduct a more efficient investigation.'' At this hearing, Director Mueller added his voice to the chorus of support from so many law enforcement professionals for legislative solutions that address the deficiencies in current law. Closing the terror gap and increasing the duration of firearm record retention are two ways to give the law enforcement community the necessary tools to keep guns and explosives out of the hands of known and suspected terrorists. Congress should listen to the brave men and women charged with protecting the American public and, without further delay, pass these commonsense solutions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois was sworn into office less than 2 years ago. In that short time, he has debated and voted on some of the most important legislation the Senate has considered in 40 years. During his tenure, Senator Burris has helped pass major reforms to end abuses by the credit card industry, to put a cop back on the beat on Wall Street, and to expand health care coverage to 32 million Americans while reducing the Federal deficit by $143 billion. Senator Burris also voted to confirm the nomination of two U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Senator Burris serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which I chair. During his service on the committee, Senator Burris helped provide oversight of the military as we draw down U.S. forces in Iraq and standup Afghan forces in Afghanistan. He has helped pass weapons acquisition reform legislation and two National Defense Authorization Acts out of committee. He has helped confirm the nominations of Nation's top civilian and military leaders. Before coming to the Senate, Roland Burris had a distinguished career in Illinois politics, as Illinois comptroller and then as the Illinois attorney general. As Senator Burris ends his time here in the Senate, I thank him for his service to our Nation and wish him and his family the very best.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer, Senator Kaufman, be recognized for 10 minutes as though in morning business--during that period, I will preside--and then that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes as though in morning business while the Presiding Officer resumes the chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. (Mr. LEVIN assumed the chair.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today simply to thank my friend, the Senator from Delaware, for his extraordinary work in the Senate and to make a comment on some of the things he has been working on. Since coming to this body, Senator Kaufman has proven to be a tireless advocate for his State of Delaware and the country, and his remarks he just provided are further evidence of that. Senator Kaufman joined us here and joined me on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where he and his staff dug deeply into the weeds of financial statements and e-mails in efforts that helped ferret out some of the astonishing findings of our hearings into the causes of the financial crisis. Senator Kaufman's dedication and thoughtful questioning during those hearings helped expose some of the root causes and crass conflicts of interest that led to the crisis that brought our economy to its knees. I also want to make particular note of Senator Kaufman's work on high frequency trading, flash trading, and other trading market issues, where those with powerful computers are able to exploit weaknesses in our regulatory systems to their own financial advantage, while hurting long-term investors and hurting the real economy. Senator Kaufman cares deeply about these issues, and he has voiced his concerns about them in this Chamber for over a year. Last year, he called for a ban on flash trading, a practice in which some firms pay for a ``sneak peak,'' only a few thousandths of a second long, at trades. With their computers, those firms can take advantage of that split-second head start on market-moving trades. The Securities and Exchange Commission is working on rules to ban the practice, and I join Senator Kaufman in urging that this practice be stopped. Senator Kaufman has studied the trading markets in great detail, communicating with regulators and industry participants. He has learned that our regulatory system for monitoring trading is outdated and that the technology and capabilities of those who seek to exploit loopholes in the rules or avoid them altogether have too often outpaced those tasked with their oversight. Senator Kaufman has come to this floor many times over the past several months to warn us of the risks of our current trading market structure, and of his concerns with the inadequate regulatory process we have to police them. On August 5, he sent a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Schapiro outlining proposals to address some of those concerns. His thoughtful proposals make a significant contribution to the debate over how to make our financial system safer. On May 6 of this year, we all watched helplessly as the stock market plunged nearly 1,000 points in a few minutes. While the regulators have committed to studying it and are expected to release their report soon on the root causes of that ``flash crash,'' I cannot help but think that we in Congress owe it to families and businesses around this country to better understand what happened and to make sure we do what we can to stop it from happening again. Although Senator Kaufman will soon be departing this body, we must continue his work so that those who seek to exploit our markets to the detriment of long-term investors and the real economy will not be able to do so without a battle from the Senate. Senator Jack Reed is committed to doing just that. He held a hearing in May shortly after the flash crash in which he looked into the causes of the crash. I will join him and others and do all we can to respond to these high-tech threats to market fairness and transparency. The world of trading stocks, bonds, commodities, and other financial instruments today occurs on two levels. There are those who invest for the long haul, investing in companies and products they expect to do well for some time. They drive our economy. But then there are those who seek to ``invest'' for thousandths of a second or just long enough to profit on split-second price swings. These traders argue that they provide ``liquidity'' to the markets, but in many cases they are actually hurting the markets by promoting volatility and undermining the integrity of those markets. As Senator Kaufman said, we owe it to the millions of families who have their savings in the markets and to the businesses that rely on the markets for the capital they need to survive and grow to make sure our markets function properly. I applaud Senator Kaufman for his extraordinary work on these issues and other issues in the Senate. I thank him for his service. One way for us to recognize that service is to continue his quest for more fair and transparent markets. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today one of the most enduring figures in this Nation's political history and the history of this Chamber will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. For more than half a century, it was almost impossible to discuss the State of Alaska without discussing Theodore Fulton ``Ted'' Stevens. Like many, Ted Stevens came to Alaska from elsewhere, searching for opportunity to serve. Few succeed as well as he did. He was named a Federal prosecutor just months after he arrived in Alaska in 1953-- meaning his public service to Alaska predated its statehood. He was a key figure in the drive for statehood. He served in the State legislature before coming to this Chamber in 1968. Over the next four decades, he became one of the most influential Senators of the 20th century. Alaska was a young State with a small population, but that did not stop Ted Stevens from advocating forcefully and effectively on his State's behalf. He became the longest serving Republican in the history of the Senate, and the State he fought for became a huge beneficiary of his service. He was a World War II veteran and a devoted family man. History will remember him as one of those present at the founding of Alaskan statehood and a longtime servant of the State. Barbara and I know that the memory of Ted Stevens' long and full life will relieve the sadness of his family, his constituents, and his multitude of friends at his passing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the American people understand a simple truth: Our Tax Code should not encourage U.S. companies to send their jobs overseas. That is why we have proposed the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. This legislation would take important steps to prevent American workers from losing their jobs because American companies get tax breaks when they move jobs overseas. I thank Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Dorgan for introducing this legislation. It would eliminate tax deductions that corporations claim for expenses related to sending U.S. jobs overseas. It would end the tax breaks companies receive on income earned by foreign subsidiaries established to do work they once did with American workers. And in a bid to turn around the twisted incentives in our Tax Code, incentives that now encourage companies to send jobs overseas, it would provide incentives for companies to bring those jobs back home. I understand some of my colleagues oppose this legislation because they fear it might violate our treaty obligations. It is difficult to have sympathy for this position, given the thousands of U.S. jobs lost because our trading partners fail to live up to their treaty obligations. I am in favor of trade, but I strongly oppose unilateral disarmament when it comes to trade. It is our obligation to defend the interests of U.S. workers. Ending the tax incentives that cost thousands of those workers their jobs is one way we can fulfill that obligation. U.S. companies that do the right thing by their U.S. workers should not be at a disadvantage over those companies that ship jobs overseas. U.S. tax law should not encourage companies to fire hard-working Americans. We should pass this legislation and end the distorted incentives that are costing Americans their jobs.

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, I am pleased to pay tribute to a distinguished religious leader in Saginaw, MI, Pastor Rufus Bradley, Jr. Pastor Bradley will be honored at a banquet on September 25, 2010, by his church family. The banquet will celebrate his 30 years of ministry and his 23 years as Pastor of New Life Baptist Church Ministries. Since accepting his call to the ministry, Pastor Bradley has persistently sought to encourage and enlighten his congregation, and through these efforts, has earned the respect and admiration of people throughout Michigan. His pastoral leadership and commitment to service is admirable, and The New Life Baptist Church Ministries has flourished under his spiritual guidance. Through his stewardship and many community-based efforts such as the ``Mission in the City Movement,'' Pastor Bradley has provided much needed assistance to those most in need in the greater Saginaw community. Before becoming pastor of New Life, Pastor Bradley studied theology under the tutelage of several well-known religious leaders. He also earned a bachelor's degree from the United Theological Seminary in Monroe, LA, and is a graduate of the Beeson Institute for Advanced Church Leadership. Pastor Bradley is a family man and is supported by his wife, Relinda Bradley. They have enjoyed 32 wonderful years together and are the proud parents of two children, June and Rufus, Jr. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Pastor Bradley on 30 years of pastoral leadership and faithful service to the greater Saginaw community. We wish him the best as he continues this important work for many more years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I have long supported the rights of workers to form unions, and I support the National Mediation Board's new rule allowing those in the rail and airline industries to form a union based on the votes cast by a simple majority, a basic principle of democracy. Under the previous rule, a vote not cast was counted as a vote against the union, in spite of the fact that it is impossible to discern the intention of someone not casting a vote. The new rule adopted by the National Mediation Board mirrors the practice of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections in other sectors, and it mirrors the rules by which we choose our elected officials: the only votes counted are those actually cast. Discontinuing this unfair and undemocratic practice was the right thing for the National Mediation Board to do. The new rule is fair to all parties, and is consistent with our democratic traditions. For this reason, I do not support the Isakson resolution opposing this new regulation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate once again has an opportunity to defend the public's confidence in our democratic system. In July, we missed this opportunity by failing to approve a motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act, a vital step in preserving the transparency and integrity of our elections. I urge my colleagues not to repeat that mistake. We should take up, debate, and pass the DISCLOSE Act. Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court discarded decades of precedent and concern for the health of our democracy when it decided on a 5-4 vote to eliminate regulations on corporate expenditures on elections. I strongly disagreed with that decision, but it is now the law of the land, and we are left with the task of trying to preserve the ability of individual Americans to be heard in a political process that could be swamped by a flood of corporate money. The DISCLOSE Act requires corporations, unions, or advocacy organizations to stand by their advertisements and inform their members about their election-related spending. It imposes transparency requirements, requires spending amounts to be posted online, and prevents government contractors, corporations controlled by foreigners, and corporate beneficiaries of TARP funds from spending money on elections. I am an original cosponsor of the act because I believe it is essential to protect public confidence in the integrity of our elections. By establishing these requirements, we will not prevent corporations from engaging in the activities the Supreme Court has allowed. We are simply giving Americans the ability to see how these companies, unions and other groups are seeking to influence the political process. This should not be an issue of Republicans and Democrats. We should all agree that our democracy is best served when its election campaigns are conducted transparently. The American people are depending on us to defend the integrity of the political process. We should not fail to uphold that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to debate and adopt adopt this vital legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope we will proceed to the Defense authorization bill this afternoon. The Senator from Maine, as far as I am concerned, has raised a very legitimate question about whether amendments will be offerable to this bill, and the majority leader has spoken on that on the Record. This is what he said last Thursday. He said: . . . in addition to issues I have talked about in the last couple days, there are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address. I am willing to work with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible, which likely will be after the recess. So the majority leader has said he is more than willing to engage in that process. If that process does not lead to a fair result, then--if we can get to the bill--if the Republicans feel there has not been adequate opportunity to offer amendments, the opportunity will be there to prevent the passage of the bill until those amendments are considered. This is the normal process. But to deny an opportunity to move to the bill so we can engage in a debate on amendments and so we hopefully will have an opportunity, as we should, to debate amendments on the bill, it seems to me is prejudging the outcome of the debate. The time to determine whether there has been adequate opportunity to debate the bill is after you have had an opportunity to debate the bill. That judgment cannot be made in advance, particularly in the face of the majority leader's assurance. I agree with the Senator from Maine that it is important this assurance be there. It is there, it was there, in part, because of the issue she has raised over the last few days. When the majority leader says let us get to the bill because he agrees--he has talked about a number of issues, but in addition to the issues which he has talked about, which include a debate on don't ask, don't tell, include a debate on the DREAM Act--in his words, ``there are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address'' and that he is ``willing to work with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible, which likely will be after the recess.'' But we need to get to the bill. We need to get to the bill so we can then begin to debate amendments. I think many Senators have amendments they want to offer. It is not unusual on a Defense authorization bill. We usually have hundreds of amendments that are offered. Last year, I believe we adopted something like 60 amendments. That process will again occur but only if we can get to the bill. To insist in advance there be an agreement, let me tell you, as manager of the bill, I love unanimous consent agreements. I love time limits. I love time agreements. I love agreements to limit amendments. That is fine. But until you get to the bill, you are not in a position to work out such agreements. These are theoretical issues. We do not even know what amendments are going to be offered to this bill--until we get to the bill. How can you have an agreement on what amendments will be in order when we have not gotten to the bill and the amendments are not even filed? So it is a legitimate point the Senator from Maine makes that she wants to be sure, as I hope every Senator does, that there will be adequate consideration of amendments during the debate on this bill. The Republicans have the ability to stop a completion of consideration of this bill until--unless and until--there is an opportunity to have a debate on amendments the way we usually do on the authorization bill. That ability to stop the completion of this bill is there, but it can only be utilized if we get to the bill. To try to figure out in advance all the amendments which might be filed and what amendments will be ordered and what time agreements will be reached is, it seems to me as a practical matter, impossible to do. The assurance of the majority leader was there and is there. I am not going to repeat it because I have already quoted it twice--but that assurance that other amendments, besides the ones he has talked about publicly, will be in order. Again, I think everybody understands the rules of this place. Nonrelevant amendments can be offered. They have in the past on this bill, including by the Senator from Arizona, who offered a very nonrelevant amendment against the wishes of Senator Warner, an amendment having to do with campaign finance reform not too many years ago. That amendment, although nonrelevant, was passed by this body. I supported that amendment, against the wishes of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. There are dozens of nonrelevant amendments which have been offered on the Defense authorization bill. To suggest somehow or other that only began last year when there was a--or on the last bill--when there was a debate on hate crimes is inaccurate. It was not a debate on the addition of the hate crimes amendment which began the consideration of nonrelevant amendments on the Defense authorization bill. As a matter of fact, it was the fourth time the hate crimes amendment was adopted on the Defense authorization bill. The first time was when Senator Thurmond was chairman of the committee, against his wishes but nonetheless adopted. There are literally dozens of other nonrelevant amendments that have been considered. Why? Because the rules of the Senate permit consideration of nonrelevant amendments on bills. This is one of the few authorization bills that needs to be passed, not just because it supports the troops, critical not only in wartime but generally, but also because of the rules of this body requiring there be an authorization bill for defense for a number of specific matters, including military construction. So our hope is we can begin consideration of this bill. I am going to give the reasons why we need to consider this bill in a few moments. But, again, I wish to assure colleagues there is plenty of opportunity to prevent this bill from being adopted if there is not adequate consideration of amendments that people may want to offer--relevant amendments and, yes, nonrelevant amendments--because the rules of the Senate permit the consideration of nonrelevant amendments. So I hope we can get the votes of 60 Senators this afternoon to begin consideration of this bill. We have enacted a Defense authorization bill every year for the last 48 years. We have done so because the bill always contains important bipartisan measures to improve the compensation and quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provides our troops the equipment and support they need in ongoing military operations around the world, and enhances the oversight and efficiency of DOD operations. Yesterday afternoon, I described in detail many such measures that are included in this year's bill. Before I continue, I do have a parliamentary inquiry as to what the time situation is: How many minutes are there available prior to the recess for the caucuses, and what is the division of that time?

Mr. LEVIN. So the majority has 36 minutes; is that what I understand?