Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me join my colleague from North Dakota in making a plea to the Senator from Louisiana. As the Senator from Louisiana knows, I am chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Our committee operates on a bipartisan basis. I see one other member of the committee sitting on the floor; in fact, two other committee members are on the floor, including the Presiding Officer. I know they would confirm what I am saying. We should keep our uniformed military officers out of any kind of political crossfire. They don't make these decisions. They put on the uniform of the United States. They give their lives. Their families support them. The least we can do is give them bipartisan support. We do that on this committee. This nomination was approved and put on the calendar on October 27. This is a document we call the Executive Calendar of the Senate. It is printed every day. This general has been sitting here now, MG Michael J. Walsh, since October 27. The Senator from Louisiana has expressed himself to the Corps of Engineers. He has made his arguments. This general cannot do what the Senator from Louisiana is asking for. No. 1, he can't do it because the corps has told the Senator they don't have the authority to do what he wants them to do in terms of these three projects. In any event, this general does not have the authority within the corps to make these kinds of decisions, even if the corps had the authority to approve these projects. As chairman of the committee, I know I am speaking not only for myself, I am speaking for every member of the committee who has voted for this general's nomination. I know I am speaking for Senator McCain, who has told me specifically that I can invoke his name in support of a plea to the Senator from Louisiana to no longer hold this nomination. It cannot achieve what the Senator from Louisiana wants to achieve. It is a terrible message to the men and women in uniform that a nomination such as this is obstructed because there is a request from one Senator for some projects for his State which the corps cannot approve, according to the letter which the corps has sent to the Senator from Louisiana. I join my friend from North Dakota. On behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I make this plea. I spoke to the Senator from Louisiana a number of months ago. He indicated to me that he just needed a few more weeks. He thought he could straighten this out in a few more weeks. A couple months have now passed since that conversation. I would make this plea as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I know, representing the unanimous view of the committee, that this man, this soldier, this general should not have his promotion held up for these kinds of reasons or any kind of reason, as far as I am concerned, but surely not a reason where he himself is personally involved. Once in a while we will disagree with a nomination, including of a uniformed officer, where we have problems with that uniformed officer's activities, something they may have done that we disapprove of--rarely, but it happens. But in this case, this has nothing to do with this officer. The objection or the effort of the Senator from Louisiana has nothing to do with this officer. It is not this officer who is blocking anything the Senator from Louisiana wants. I join this plea the Senator from North Dakota has made. I know he will be making a unanimous consent request. I will be joining in that request when he makes it.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield further?

Mr. LEVIN. Let me read to you from the March 19 letter from the Corps on this issue. The Senator from Louisiana said the example he wanted to use was something called the Morganza project. That is the example. He said, let me just give you one example. Three times, he says, this project has been authorized. Well, this is what the Corps says relative to Morganza. OK. This is in writing, a letter to Senator Vitter: The Corps does not have authority to implement the Houma Navigation Lock as an independent project. Section 425 of WRDA 1996 authorized a study of an independent lock, but did not authorize construction. Section 425 in part read . . . ``The Secretary shall conduct a study of environmental, flood control, and navigation impacts associated with the construction of a lock structure in the Houma Navigation Canal as an independent feature of the overall damage prevention study being conducted under the Morganza,-- That is his project-- Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico feasibility study.'' The Corps conducted a study in response to Section 425, but that study did not recommend construction of an independent Houma Navigation Lock feature due to uncertainties of benefits and concerns over justification of an independent lock structure. That is their answer. They do not have the authority to do it. Again, I know the Senator from Missouri is on the committee, so she understands that we act in a bipartisan way. We try to protect and defend and support the uniformed members of the U.S. military. We have unlimited bipartisan support for what they do for us, and this is the response--a hold on a nomination because the Corps will not do something they are not authorized to do? I think it is so unacceptable, I made this unanimous consent request about 2 months ago. The Senator from Louisiana objected then. He said to give him a few more weeks. He thinks he could work it out. Those few weeks have long gone. So I very much support the effort of the Senator from North Dakota here.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator from Delaware has a unanimous consent request which has been cleared. I wonder, just to make sure the Senator from Louisiana does have notice--apparently, he has been notified there is going to be a unanimous consent request.

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, ``Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of Credit Rating Agencies.'' This hearing will be the third in a series of Subcommittee hearings examining some of the causes and consequences of the recent financial crisis. This third hearing will focus on the role of credit rating agencies in the financial crisis, using as case histories the credit rating agencies of Standard and Poor's and Moody's. A witness list will be available Monday, April 19, 2010. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Friday, April 23, 2010, 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.

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, ``Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of Investment Banks.'' This hearing will be the fourth in a series of Subcommittee hearings examining some of the causes and consequences of the recent financial crisis. The fourth hearing will focus on the role of investment banks in the securitization of residential mortgage related products, and the development, marketing, and trading of residential mortgage related structured financial products such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDS). The hearing will also review certain investment and trading activities of investment banks that involve residential mortgage based securities and related products. A witness list will be available Thursday, April 22, 2010. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 11 a.m., in Room 106 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. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that this vote comes today and not 2 weeks ago. While we delayed taking action, thousands of people in my state, and millions across the country, worried that these benefits, benefits that provide a thin buffer between their families and disaster, would disappear. These families are suffering through the anxiety and frustration of job loss not because of anything they did, but because of a crisis spawned in Wall Street banks and unscrupulous mortgage companies. This bill takes a number of important steps to alleviate the effects of the financial crisis. It would extend the unemployment and COBRA health insurance benefits on which so many families depend until early June. While we have seen recent signs of improvement in employment, the unemployment rate in Michigan, and the Nation, remains unacceptably high, making these extensions all the more necessary. According to the governor's office, more than 125,000 Michiganians will exhaust their unemployment benefits. We should keep in mind, too, that extending these benefits not only helps families struggling to put food on the table and a roof overhead; it helps all of us, by contributing to our economic recovery. There is widespread agreement that benefits such as unemployment payments give us the biggest ``bang for the buck'' in terms of economic stimulus. By extending these benefits, we will give continued support to an economy struggling to recover, an effort that benefits all Americans. I encourage my colleagues to place the interests of struggling American families, and the economic recovery, clearly before us, and to pass this much-needed extension.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Harbor Maintenance Act, a bill with bipartisan and multi-regional support that would help ensure that funds deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would be used for their intended purposes: to properly maintain and operate our Federal harbors and ports. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, also known as the HMTF, was created to collect fees in order to pay for the maintenance and operation costs of Federal harbors and ports. While nearly \1/4\ of the U.S. gross domestic product flows through these harbors, over half of these important ports are not maintained to their authorized dimensions. This results in less efficient and more polluting transport, as well as an increased risk of vessel groundings and collisions. One of the ways to ensure a robust and sustainable economic recovery includes strengthening our Nation's infrastructure, which includes our navigational infrastructure. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars are collected into the HMTF but never spent, even though there are critical navigation needs. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates a backlog of about 15 million cubic yards of dredging needs at commercial federally- authorized Great Lakes harbors and channels. This dredging backlog has resulted in freighters getting stuck in channels, ships having to carry reduced loads, and some shipments simply stopping altogether.Dredging to proper depths is critical not only for Michigan's economy, but for the Nation's economy, as these shipments include commodities that fuel our Nation's industries, products for construction, fuel for heating and cooling homes and businesses, and agricultural products for export. Similar navigational infrastructure needs exist throughout our country, and the range of cosponsors from different parts of the country demonstrates this bill would help improve the navigational infrastructure across the Nation. This bill also has the support of a broad coalition called the Realize America's Maritime Promise, which is made up of hundreds of port authorities, vessel operators, port communities, public and private terminal operators, pilot associations, dredging companies, shipbuilders, maritime labor unions, manufacturers, bulk cargo owners and shippers, and other companies and associations dependent on fully accessible navigation channels. Currently, the HMTF has a surplus that exceeds $5 billion. Beginning in 2003, funds appropriated for harbor and channel maintenance have been significantly below annual HMTF collections. To help ensure these backlogs do not continue to grow, this bill would allow any Member of Congress to make a point of order against an appropriations bill if the total revenue for that fiscal year, as projected in the President's annual budget request, is not fully appropriated for its intended navigational infrastructure purposes. Similar problems with funding backlogs occurred with the Highway Trust Fund and the Airports and Airways Trust Fund. Congress responded by enacting legislation to address these problems. Congress should do the same for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Our Nation's infrastructure--whether it be roadways, airports, or ports and harbors--should be treated the same way. Shipping by water is the most efficient means of transporting bulk commodities, and we should make sure our Nation's navigational infrastructure can effectively handle these shipments, rather than allowing these ports and harbors to exist in a state of disrepair. A sustainable economic recovery depends on strong infrastructure. Passing this bill would help us advance our recovery and improve our economic competitiveness. I urge your support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Harbor Maintenance Act, a bill with bipartisan and multi-regional support that would help ensure that funds deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would be used for their intended purposes: to properly maintain and operate our Federal harbors and ports. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, also known as the HMTF, was created to collect fees in order to pay for the maintenance and operation costs of Federal harbors and ports. While nearly \1/4\ of the U.S. gross domestic product flows through these harbors, over half of these important ports are not maintained to their authorized dimensions. This results in less efficient and more polluting transport, as well as an increased risk of vessel groundings and collisions. One of the ways to ensure a robust and sustainable economic recovery includes strengthening our Nation's infrastructure, which includes our navigational infrastructure. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars are collected into the HMTF but never spent, even though there are critical navigation needs. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates a backlog of about 15 million cubic yards of dredging needs at commercial federally- authorized Great Lakes harbors and channels. This dredging backlog has resulted in freighters getting stuck in channels, ships having to carry reduced loads, and some shipments simply stopping altogether.Dredging to proper depths is critical not only for Michigan's economy, but for the Nation's economy, as these shipments include commodities that fuel our Nation's industries, products for construction, fuel for heating and cooling homes and businesses, and agricultural products for export. Similar navigational infrastructure needs exist throughout our country, and the range of cosponsors from different parts of the country demonstrates this bill would help improve the navigational infrastructure across the Nation. This bill also has the support of a broad coalition called the Realize America's Maritime Promise, which is made up of hundreds of port authorities, vessel operators, port communities, public and private terminal operators, pilot associations, dredging companies, shipbuilders, maritime labor unions, manufacturers, bulk cargo owners and shippers, and other companies and associations dependent on fully accessible navigation channels. Currently, the HMTF has a surplus that exceeds $5 billion. Beginning in 2003, funds appropriated for harbor and channel maintenance have been significantly below annual HMTF collections. To help ensure these backlogs do not continue to grow, this bill would allow any Member of Congress to make a point of order against an appropriations bill if the total revenue for that fiscal year, as projected in the President's annual budget request, is not fully appropriated for its intended navigational infrastructure purposes. Similar problems with funding backlogs occurred with the Highway Trust Fund and the Airports and Airways Trust Fund. Congress responded by enacting legislation to address these problems. Congress should do the same for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Our Nation's infrastructure--whether it be roadways, airports, or ports and harbors--should be treated the same way. Shipping by water is the most efficient means of transporting bulk commodities, and we should make sure our Nation's navigational infrastructure can effectively handle these shipments, rather than allowing these ports and harbors to exist in a state of disrepair. A sustainable economic recovery depends on strong infrastructure. Passing this bill would help us advance our recovery and improve our economic competitiveness. I urge your support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize Dr. Richard J. Pappas, who assumed the presidency of Davenport University in August 2009 and was formally installed in this role on March 31, 2010. This investiture ceremony was surely a significant milestone for Dr. Pappas and his family, and is the result of many years of dedication and hard work. Indeed, Dr. Pappas is poised to lead this fine institution to new heights as he builds on Davenport University's proud tradition. With 14 campuses located across Michigan and an enrollment of more than 12,000 students, Davenport University is an important part of the educational landscape of Michigan. With his ``Vision 2015,'' Dr. Pappas has embarked on an effort to reshape and sharpen the focus of the university. Vision 2015 emphasizes academic programming, market position, and financial strength, three aspects critical to the success of a college or university. This is a comprehensive plan, one that will position Davenport University for success for many years. Throughout his career, Dr. Pappas has proven to be a talented administrator and leader in the field of higher education. Before assuming the presidency of Davenport University, Dr. Pappas served as president of three other institutions: National-Louis University, Lake Michigan College, and Harford Community College. With Dr. Pappas at the helm, Davenport University will benefit from a leader that brings more than three decades of experience in higher education to this position, including 20 years as the head of an institution of higher education. This broad knowledge of the needs of students at both 4-year and 2-year institutions will be especially helpful. In addition to leading two institutions in Michigan, I am proud to say that Dr. Pappas is a native Michiganian. After growing up in Michigan, he earned his undergraduate degree from Eastern Michigan University and his master's and doctoral degrees from the University of Michigan. He is committed to civic and community endeavors, which is evidenced by his years of involvement in charitable organizations and civic boards. As a result of his many efforts, Dr. Pappas has received several prestigious awards over the years, including the University of Michigan's Norman C. Harris Alumni Award and the National Council for Marketing and Public Relations Pacesetter Award. And above all, Dr. Pappas is a family man and is buoyed by his wife, Pam, and his three children. Again, I am privileged to have an opportunity to honor Dr. Pappas as he embarks on a wonderful journey. There is no more noble cause than educating our next generation of leaders. His imprint on the lives of these young people will be tremendous, and I know he is well-suited and eager to undertake this challenge. I look forward to hearing about Davenport University's many successes in the years ahead.

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, ``Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: The Role of Bank Regulators.'' This hearing will be the second in a series of Subcommittee hearings examining some of the causes and consequences of the recent financial crisis. This second hearing will focus on the role of bank regulators in the financial crisis, using as a case history oversight efforts by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) with respect to Washington Mutual Bank and its affiliate, Long Beach Mortgage Company. Washington Mutual Bank, the nation's largest thrift with $300 billion in assets, $188 billion in deposits and 43,000 employees, was closed by OTS on September 25, 2008, and immediately sold by FDIC to JPMorgan Chase, resulting in the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Friday, April 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 202-224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if Senator Chambliss might stay for 1 second so I can inform my Republican colleagues, in about 10 minutes I will be asking unanimous consent to confirm a general who has been nominated--a brigadier general who has been nominated to be a major general, who has been stuck on this calendar since October because of the objection of Senator Vitter, who is not hiding that it is totally unrelated to the merits of this general. He acknowledges that. Senator Vitter has acknowledged that his problem is with the Corps of Engineers. This is a Corps of Engineers that has nothing to do with the projects Senator Vitter is trying to get funded. The Corps of Engineers has said it is illegal to proceed. They have written him back. The hold still stands. This is a uniformed officer of the U.S. Government. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I feel obligated--and the reason I interrupted your mission, forgive me, is because it is a Senate Armed Services Committee matter, where we have unanimously approved him 6 months ago or 5 months ago to be a major general. I want to put folks on notice. I will be making a unanimous consent request in about 10 minutes that this matter be taken off the calendar and that it be confirmed. I wanted, as a courtesy, to make sure folks on that side of the aisle knew. I thank my dear friend from Michigan, my colleague, Senator Stabenow, for yielding me this time. I know later on this morning or early this afternoon there will be a unanimous consent request that unemployment benefits be extended, that a bill be adopted. It is critically important that unanimous consent request be approved. I will speak now for a few minutes on that matter. We have thousands of people in our State of Michigan who have lost jobs thanks to a crisis that was created in mortgage company boiler rooms and Wall Street board rooms. Now they are suffering because of the failure of our Republican colleagues to understand the emergency situation--I want to focus on the word ``emergency''--of those who have lost their jobs because of that crisis. It should not be hard to deliver much needed aid to people who are facing an emergency crisis. We have an unemployment rate in the country that is approximating 10 percent. We have an unemployment rate in Michigan that is over 14 percent. People need us to do what is right and to extend these benefits. Here we are, up against a wall of obstructionism again, while thousands of our constituents, people in every State, wonder what it is exactly we are doing that we would deny the extension of unemployment benefits when we have a deep recession. Hopefully, we may be coming out. There is some evidence we may be coming out, but not for this record number of people who will lose their unemployment benefits if we don't act. This is not an abstract policy debate. These are real lives which are hanging in the balance. We have more than a half million Michiganians receiving unemployment benefits. We have 125,000 Michiganians who will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of April, if we do not act. Unemployed breadwinners will continue to receive benefits only if we can find the will and the decency to act on their behalf--real people, real families coping with enormous problems. Denying this extension is simply inhumane. It is more than the families. We could talk about that. We can talk about the economy, which also benefits from these unemployment benefits. In fact, economists tell us--this has been extensively documented--that government payments, such as unemployment benefits, are among the most effective forms of economic stimulus. Not providing that stimulus has a negative effect on the entire economy. But that is not the point I wish to reinforce this morning. It is the fact that we have an emergency in millions of homes, and that emergency needs to be recognized as such. If it is--and I hope our Republican colleagues would agree--we then do not have to have the offsets which we would if it is not designated as an emergency. Our Republican colleagues tell us they are in favor of an extension, but they argue it should be offset with cuts in other programs. In fact, one of the programs they look to for an offset is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or the stimulus package. It is a pretty ironic place to look since that package is a job creator. So in order to do the right thing and extend unemployment benefits, some of our Republican colleagues argue--and I guess continue to believe--we should take funds from a stimulus package, which most economists say is creating jobs, in order to pay for the extension of jobless benefits. If there is any wrong place to look for offsets, that would be it. The main point is not that it is the wrong offset. The main point is, every single time we have extended benefits, we have seen in this body that it is an emergency. On June 30, 2008, in a 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act, we deemed the extension of unemployment benefits an emergency. It was designated as an emergency on June 30, 2008. Then when we funded unemployment benefits on February 17, 2009, we designated that extension cost as an emergency. December 19, 2009, when we extended benefits, this time in a Defense Appropriations Act, it was designated an emergency. On March 2, a few weeks ago, it was designated as an emergency. Is the emergency over? Is this recession over? Is that what Republican objections are suggesting? It is no longer an emergency? It has been an emergency since 2008, but that is all over now? I don't think the American people see it that way. I think the American people see what is happening in their families, in their homes, a crisis that continues to exist with record levels of unemployment. I hope we will be able today to persuade our Republican colleagues they should not object to the extension of benefits and to continue to declare the situation in which we find ourselves as an emergency, since it so clearly is. I ask the Presiding Officer how much time I have remaining.

Mr. LEVIN. May I have 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, back in October--to be precise, October 27, so we have now almost 5 months--almost 5 months ago, the Armed Services Committee unanimously approved the nomination of BG Michael Walsh to be a major general. This is a man who has had an exemplary career in the military. He has been there 30 years in the Corps of Engineers. He served in command assignments throughout the United States, throughout the world. In 2006-2008, Brigadier General Walsh served in Baghdad. He was commander of the Gulf Region Division of the Army Corps of Engineers. He was responsible for reconstruction projects managed by the corps throughout Iraq. Prior to that tour, Brigadier General Walsh served as commander of the Army Corps's South Atlantic Division. He served in places as far afield as Germany and Saudi Arabia. We approved this unanimously in the committee. There is no doubt about this general's qualifications and his character. No one has raised the slightest issue as to whether he should be approved based on his own merits. Instead, the objection is, the Corps of Engineers has not approved a number of projects Senator Vitter wants the corps to approve. It is inappropriate to stop a uniformed officer of the United States from having an advancement in his career because a Senator believes the Corps of Engineers, where this general served, should approve projects which the corps has said it cannot approve. Even if it wanted to, it can't approve them. The funds have not been appropriated. They have written Senator Vitter that it is illegal for them to approve these projects, as well as being against their policy. I don't want to get into the question of whether it is legal or whether it is the right policy to approve three projects which Senator Vitter thinks are important. That is not the issue. This general could not approve those projects if he wanted to. It is not his job. That comes from higher up. All he does is execute projects which the corps approves. This is the situation. For 5 months, we have a uniformed officer of the United States whose career is being interfered with in this way, whose advancement is being interfered with because there is a hold on this nomination from one Republican Senator. I have urged the leadership on the other side to weigh in on this. By the way, Senator McCain, my ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, supports what I am doing. I want Republicans to realize this. The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is joining me in making this unanimous consent request. This was a unanimously approved nomination. He loses pay. He loses rank. His career is interrupted. Why should this kind of unfairness be perpetrated on a uniformed member of the U.S. Army because one Republican Senator can't get the projects he thinks he should get for his State? That is what it comes down to. This is one of the purest forms of inappropriate obstructionism I have seen here. As chairman of the committee, I am simply not going to stand by without trying my best to change this. I hope my friends will not object, but I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar, Calendar No. 526, BG Michael Walsh, to be major general; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume where it was.

Mr. LEVIN. I deeply regret that, and I am going to continue to press forward on this. I hope the leadership on the Republican side will weigh in on this. I yield the floor, and I thank my friend.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on March 4, 2010, John Patrick Bedell, a 36-year-old Californian with a history of mental illness, arrived at the Pentagon after a manic, cross-country journey. At 6:40 pm, Mr. Bedell, armed with two 9mm handguns, walked to the security checkpoint at the Pentagon entrance and started shooting. Three Pentagon security officers, Colin Richards, Jeffrey Amos and Marvin Carraway, returned fire and brought down Mr. Bedell, who later died from his injuries. Mr. Amos and Mr. Carraway were wounded in the exchange, but thankfully have fully recovered. If not for the decisive action taken by these brave officers, this apparently random attack could have claimed more victims. And while I am pleased the Pentagon's security system worked in this instance, I remain deeply troubled by the fact that Mr. Bedell was able to acquire firearms in the first place. Since the shooting, law enforcement officials have been able to partially trace the firearms used by Mr. Bedell. One handgun was sold last year to a private individual at a Las Vegas gun show, and that person later resold the gun to a third person. At that point, according to authorities, they were not able to further trace the gun's ownership history until Mr. Bedell opened fire on March 4. This murky trail perfectly illustrates the danger of unregulated, private firearm transactions. Under the Brady Law, before an individual can purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, they must pass a background check to ensure they are not legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm. In 2008, 9.9 million background checks were conducted for firearm purchases, 147,000 of which were rejected. The majority of these denials were the consequence of a prior conviction, indictment or a history of mental illness. However, when an individual purchases a handgun from a private citizen, who is not a licensed gun dealer, there are no requirements to ensure that the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. Neither the Las Vegas gun show sale, nor the subsequent private transactions that ultimately resulted in Mr. Bedell acquiring the firearm, were regulated. Due to this ``gun show loophole'' in federal law, authorities were not aware of, or able to block this string of private sales, which led to Mr. Bedell purchasing the weapon and using it to attack the Pentagon. In fact, according to news reports, Mr. Bedell attempted to buy a gun from a licensed firearm dealer in California, but the sale was blocked because he fell into a prohibited category. Because private party transactions account for approximately 40 percent of all gun sales, current Federal background check requirements have a limited impact on the overall rates of gun related violent crime. To better protect our communities from gun related violence, background checks should be required for all prospective firearm transactions, including private transactions. To that end, I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009, S.843, which was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg. This bill would extend the protections of the Brady Law to purchases made at gun shows, thereby closing the loophole that currently permits gun sales without criminal background checks. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass this commonsense legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to call attention to the 150th anniversary of the Men's Glee Club at the University of Michigan, the second oldest collegiate chorus in the Nation. Long recognized as one of the world's best male choruses, the Men's Glee Club is a talented and highly entertaining group. This impressive milestone will be marked by a series of events in early April. Alumni from across the Nation will gather in Ann Arbor to commemorate this occasion, celebrating 150 years of outstanding musical achievement. The Men's Glee Club, which currently numbers more than 100 and is led by director Paul Rardin, was started by a handful of students in 1859. This chorus has evolved from its early years when it was divided into groups by academic year and some of those groups were accompanied by instruments. Ultimately, these groups would unite, and ever since, the chorus has enjoyed steady and growing success. In the 1920s, the Glee Club began to venture beyond Michigan's border to tour the Nation, often by train. After World War II, the Glee Club sought to widen its audience through the use of radio, television and recordings. In 1955, the Glee Club decided to venture internationally, touring Western Europe. In 1959, the chorus won its first international competition, the International Musical Eisteddfod in Llangollen, Wales. This accomplishment was especially gratifying because the Glee Club was the first American group to do so. Since then, the Men's Glee Club has won this prestigious competition on three more occasions. In the ensuing years, the U-M Men's Glee Club has continued to travel internationally, cementing an international reputation for excellence. In 1967, the Glee Club embarked on an 8-week, around the world tour to mark the University of Michigan's 150th anniversary of its founding. In the 1980s, the Glee Club performed at Avery Fisher Hall in New York and at Tiger Stadium in Detroit prior to a World Series game. Among the group's notable alumni are individuals such as former New York governor Thomas Dewey, Metropolitan Opera star Russell Christopher, CNN medical reporter Sanjay Gupta, and Bob McGrath, a tenor who sang on the Mitch Miller Show before becoming a star on Sesame Street. The University of Michigan is renowned for excellence across many disciplines, so it is no surprise the Men's Glee Club has had such a rich history. I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the University of Michigan Men's Glee Club on their 150th anniversary. I look forward to another 150 years of harmony and outreach.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the debate which will come to a close this week has, in one sense, been going on for a year. But in another sense, it has been going on for a century. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt campaigned on the promise of a national health insurance program. Workers, Roosevelt said, are entitled to a basic standard of protection from injury and illness. Wherever such standards are not met by given establishments, by given industries, are unprovided for by a Legislature, or are balked by unenlightened courts, the workers are in jeopardy, the progressive employer is penalized, and the community pays a heavy cost in lessened efficiency and in misery. Well, since Teddy Roosevelt said that, Presidents and Members of Congress from both parties, seeing the same costs Theodore Roosevelt saw in the failure to assure health care for all, have grappled with this issue. These attempts at reform have largely fallen short. They have foundered for many reasons: Health care is personal and complex. The timing was wrong or the politics were difficult. Leaders on all sides failed to find the compromises that would have enabled them to move forward. But the recurring theme is that time and again, reformers have failed to overcome the enormous obstacles that those who profit from the status quo have been able to erect. Because we have fallen short in the past, Americans today face a health care system that costs too much and too often delivers too little. In our United States today, mothers and fathers wonder what else they can cut from the family budget to afford yet another increase in their health care premiums. Parents file for bankruptcy because their insurance fell thousands of dollars short in providing for a child's lifesaving treatment. Nearly two-thirds of bankruptcies in this country involve medical costs, and more than half of those involve people who had insurance. Small business owners eliminate health coverage for employees because they cannot afford another year of massive premium increases. Thousands of Americans who woke this morning with health care insurance will go to bed tonight without it. Despite those tragic facts, entrenched interests have sought again to prevent reform to consign our Nation to an unsustainable status quo because what is good for the American people will not necessarily profit some company. The health insurance industry has dominated health care decisions in this country for too long. How often have our constituents come to us with stories of insurance companies that deny them coverage of necessary treatment? How often have our constituents told us of insurance companies that deny coverage because of preexisting conditions or canceled coverage because of minor inaccuracies the company conveniently discovered just after diagnosis of a serious and costly illness? It is time to end the unhealthy dominance of the health insurance industry. So I will cast my vote again against those entrenched interests and my vote will be for health care reform. I hope our colleagues will do the same. We have the opportunity to finish the task of overcoming the entrenched opposition to do what so many Presidents and so many Members of this body have fought for decades to accomplish. The months of debate have been difficult. They have too often been filled with too much heat and too little light, with exaggeration, with half-truth, with untruth, with innuendo designed to obscure rather than to inform. That is no different in many ways from some previous debates on major reforms. When Congress approved Social Security in 1935, one Republican Senator warned that it would ``end the progress of a great country.'' When Medicare was debated in 1965, one critic charged that cooperating with the plan would be ``complicit in evil.'' Scare tactics of the past proved absurd, but they worked. Now we get more scare tactics. A number of our Republican colleagues continue to claim this is a big government takeover of health care. The American Medical Association supports this health care plan. Surely the American Medical Association is not a supporter of a government takeover of health care. Then we are told this will hurt Medicare. Yet the association that represents more seniors than any other, AARP, endorses this health care plan. The scare tactics are coming at it again, but there is a difference. While scare tactics were able to derail health care reform in the past, scare tactics are just not working this time. The American people have expressed their disapproval of wild, inaccurate claims in many ways, including personal conversations with most of us. It is true that because health care is so complex, because changes must be phased in and transition periods are often necessary, many of the benefits of this bill will not take effect for some time. But improvements in health care for millions of Americans will take place almost immediately. After President Obama signed this bill into law, small businesses immediately got a tax cut to help defray the cost of providing insurance to their employees. Within 3 months of the signing yesterday, the bill will allow people with preexisting conditions to access a special fund to help cover the gap until insurance exchanges, where they can obtain coverage, become operational. And retiree health plans will qualify for a reinsurance program to help lower cost. In October, the Federal Government will begin helping States set up agencies to help consumers choose new health plans or to challenge unfair decisions by their current insurance plan. Eventually, those agencies will help consumers enroll in insurance exchanges that will help millions of people find dependable coverage that meets minimum quality standards at a price they are more likely to afford. Within 6 months of the President's signature yesterday, insurance reforms will begin to take hold. New health plans will be required to let women see an OB/GYN without seeking insurance company approval. They will be prohibited from denying coverage to children based on preexisting conditions and required to allow children to remain on their parents' policies until age 26. Insurance companies will have to provide preventive care without copays or deductibles, and they will be barred from setting lifetime coverage limits. Those historic improvements in our health care system will take place within the first 6 months after enactment of this legislation. More sweeping changes will come with full implementation of this bill's provisions. We will protect Americans of all ages from denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions, from annual limits on treatment, from exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, and from confusing and opaque language that disguises the cost or the scope of coverage. We will even require insurers to give customers a rebate if those insurers don't spend enough revenue on patient care. We will fill the Medicare doughnut hole that hurts many seniors. At its heart, this bill and its improvements in this reconciliation effort aim to tackle the central problems of our health care system-- rising costs and the insecurity many Americans rightly feel about the lack of dependability of their insurance. The cost of health care already exceeds the ability of many American families to pay, will price more and more families out of the system if it continues to rise, and will present enormous problems for the Federal budget if not contained. We can and we will make the health insurance system work for those who already have coverage by holding down those unsustainable increases in premiums. In ways large and small, we attempt to tame this beast that threatens to swallow family budgets and our Federal budget. How are we going to do this? I ask the Chair how many minutes I have remaining.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, even though health care experts believe these measures are going to help lower costs for families and the government, the CBO is not even taking into account the savings which will come into existence by ending wasteful subsidies to insurance companies using Medicare Advantage, by requiring Medicare Advantage to spend at least 85 percent of revenue on benefits, and by other kinds of savings. Some of those savings cannot be figured out precisely by the Congressional Budget Office. So they are prudent. They don't even take those savings into account. But what they do, obviously, take into account and do count are savings which will lead to $140 billion for the Federal budget in the first 10 years and $1 trillion over the next decade. Those savings are real savings. Those are savings which they can figure out and cost. We are going to subject investment income of the Nation's wealthiest families with incomes over $250,000 to the Medicare tax. We are going to impose a moderate Medicare tax increase on those who have that kind of earned income, over $\1/4\ million. This bill cracks down on artificial financial structures. I commend the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and his colleagues. They are cracking down on artificial financial structures with no economic substance whose only purpose is to allow their users to avoid taxes. The Finance Committee has struggled with that issue for years. They have been trying to do this for years. They have succeeded. We pick up an awful lot of revenue that is owed to Uncle Sam by ending this kind of loophole which has allowed wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes through the use of artificial financial structures that have no economic substance, whose only purpose is to avoid paying income taxes. We will take an enormous step with the passage of this reconciliation bill, joined with the bill the President signed yesterday. Leaders of our country--from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Richard Nixon to Ted Kennedy--have fought so hard for these kinds of reforms. We are finally going to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who do not now have it, and we are going to protect those workers who Teddy Roosevelt warned nearly 100 years ago were in jeopardy unless every American had health insurance. Opponents of reform are vocal. They are strident. We are going to hear amendment after amendment being offered in an attempt to derail this effort. I hope our colleagues will answer history's call and make the real and lasting changes these bills provide, which will improve the lives of our citizens in ways we have been struggling to do in this Senate for decades and long before many of us got here. To those who continue to oppose reform, let me ask some questions. Isn't it long overdue to end discrimination based on preexisting conditions? The American people believe we should. So do I. Isn't it long overdue to end the insurance industry practice of rescissions, the denial of coverage to those who paid for it? The American people believe we should, and so do I. Should we not do something about the thousands of Americans who are forced into bankruptcy because of health expenses even though they have insurance they thought would protect them? The American people believe we should, and so do I. Should we not take strong steps to rein in enormous, ever-growing health care expenses, expenses that threaten to put health care out of reach for more and more Americans and to bankrupt our Nation? The American people believe we should. So do I. And should we not clear the way for 32 million Americans who do not now have health insurance to obtain it? The American people believe we should, and so do I. I hope we will join together this week and do what so many before us have tried and been unable to do--to reform a system that leaves so many of our fellow citizens in jeopardy. I urge approval of this bill, this essential reconciliation bill, passed by the House as part of a package of historic legislation to finish the task of bringing landmark change to American health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I make this request as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I would note that this unanimous consent request is supported by my ranking member, Senator McCain. We have three commanders scheduled to testify this afternoon. They have been scheduled for a long time. They have come a long distance. One of them has come from Korea; one of them has come from Hawaii. I would therefore ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled, currently scheduled hearing of the Committee on Armed Services, be allowed to proceed and that we be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 2010, at 2:30 in open and closed session to receive testimony from ADM Robert Willard, U.S. Navy, Commander U.S. Pacific Command; from GEN Kevin P. Chilton, U.S. Air Force, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command; and from GEN Walter Sharp, U.S. Army, Commander U.S. Forces Korea, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2011, and the future years defense programs. Senator McCain supports this request. I understand it is not likely there will be any votes on the floor until 5:30 this afternoon.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Enzi Motion To Commit

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3639

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3652

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the President signed into law today the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This bill included a provision that would extend Medicare wage index reclassifications for hospitals across more than half of the United States, including several in my home State. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 included section 508 which reclassified many hospitals' Medicare wage index to appropriately reflect the wage index of their area. This provision ensures that hospitals are able to compete fairly in that area's labor market. Since the MMA was enacted, section 508 has been extended numerous times. Many hospitals, including some in Michigan, were left out of these subsequent extensions. Consequently, those hospitals, originally included in section 508, required technical corrections so they could continue to be reclassified along with the other original hospitals included in section 508. This is something that we have done in previous years and is nothing new. These technical fixes just ensure that the original intent of section 508 is maintained.