Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Wayne County Sheriff's Office on its newly announced initiative to provide gun trigger locks free of charge to firearm owners in the Metro Detroit area. Partnering with local religious leaders and Project Child Safe, an organization that provides gun locks to law enforcement agencies, the Sheriff's Office seeks to reduce the number of firearm-related accidents that occur in the home. Every year, far too many children get access to guns in homes across the United States, often with fatal consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2006, 154 children and teens died as a result of unintentional shootings, and in 2008, 3,997 children and teens were injured by a firearm unintentionally. It is imperative that gun owners across the country safely store their weapons out of the reach of children to prevent these tragic accidents. Safe storage includes keeping guns unloaded, using trigger locks, storing guns in a locked, safe place away from children, and storing ammunition in a separate, locked place. Providing gun owners with trigger locks and educating them on gun safety and storage has become even more important with the recent increase in the number of gun owners, specifically the number of concealed weapon permit holders. According to Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon, there are currently 41,687 concealed weapon permit holders in Wayne County. There were 13,843 permit applications in 2009, up from 9,300 in 2008, and so far in 2010, the Sheriff's Office has seen an average of 61 requests per day. In light of this dramatic increase, we must do everything we can to reduce the risk guns pose to children. Commonsense gun safety legislation, such as mandatory child safety locks, could help reduce the number of tragic accidents that kill and injure young Americans. Again, I applaud the efforts of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office on their distribution of free gun trigger locks to gun owners in the Metro Detroit community.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Stabenow the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act, which would permanently protect 32,557 acres within the extraordinarily beautiful Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore located in the Michigan counties of Leelanau and Benzie. This legislation reflects the 2008 National Park Service wilderness proposal, which was the result of a lengthy public process beginning in 2006, and culminating in broad public support for the proposal. The wilderness designation improves upon a 1981 recommendation by ensuring that access to recreational areas is provided while protecting lands in their natural condition. While there currently are no areas in the Lakeshore formally designated as wilderness, the National Park Service has been managing 30,903 acres as wilderness since 1982, when an amendment to the park's enabling legislation required the Park Service to manage land recommended as wilderness in 1981 in this manner ``until Congress determines otherwise.'' The legislation I am introducing today would modify somewhat which areas would be managed as wilderness to ensure visitors continue to have access to these lands. The bill specifically excludes developed county roads and State highways from the wilderness area such that access is not impeded for recreation and other purposes. Several areas for boat launching and historic structures have also been excluded from the wilderness designation. Even with these exclusions, the overall acreage that would be designated as wilderness is slightly more than the area currently managed as wilderness because Sleeping Bear Plateau would be protected. Importantly, the wilderness designation would still allow hunting and fishing, trail-use, and camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Also, motor boats would still be allowed in Lake Michigan, and boaters would be allowed to beach their craft on beaches adjacent to the wilderness area. The bill was carefully crafted to ensure that the wilderness designation would apply only to areas currently undeveloped and possessing natural characteristics and values. There are five areas that would be designated as wilderness by this legislation. Most of North and South Manitou Islands would be designated as wilderness, with some exclusions for boat launching, roads, and historic structures. Wilderness would also be designated in the north, central, and southern parts of the Lakeshore on the mainland. In the mainland areas there are also exclusions for roads and recreational and historic features. The dramatic dunes, sandy beaches, steep bluffs, forests, inland lakes, agricultural lands, and historic structures of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore embody the rich natural and cultural history of Michigan. This wilderness designation would ensure that current and future generations will be able to enjoy solitude and recreation in these treasured areas. Even as the Sleeping Bear dunes are ever- changing as they are sculpted by the wind, it is critical that we protect these and other natural assets from being altered by development. I hope we can have prompt consideration of this bill by the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Stabenow the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act, which would permanently protect 32,557 acres within the extraordinarily beautiful Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore located in the Michigan counties of Leelanau and Benzie. This legislation reflects the 2008 National Park Service wilderness proposal, which was the result of a lengthy public process beginning in 2006, and culminating in broad public support for the proposal. The wilderness designation improves upon a 1981 recommendation by ensuring that access to recreational areas is provided while protecting lands in their natural condition. While there currently are no areas in the Lakeshore formally designated as wilderness, the National Park Service has been managing 30,903 acres as wilderness since 1982, when an amendment to the park's enabling legislation required the Park Service to manage land recommended as wilderness in 1981 in this manner ``until Congress determines otherwise.'' The legislation I am introducing today would modify somewhat which areas would be managed as wilderness to ensure visitors continue to have access to these lands. The bill specifically excludes developed county roads and State highways from the wilderness area such that access is not impeded for recreation and other purposes. Several areas for boat launching and historic structures have also been excluded from the wilderness designation. Even with these exclusions, the overall acreage that would be designated as wilderness is slightly more than the area currently managed as wilderness because Sleeping Bear Plateau would be protected. Importantly, the wilderness designation would still allow hunting and fishing, trail-use, and camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Also, motor boats would still be allowed in Lake Michigan, and boaters would be allowed to beach their craft on beaches adjacent to the wilderness area. The bill was carefully crafted to ensure that the wilderness designation would apply only to areas currently undeveloped and possessing natural characteristics and values. There are five areas that would be designated as wilderness by this legislation. Most of North and South Manitou Islands would be designated as wilderness, with some exclusions for boat launching, roads, and historic structures. Wilderness would also be designated in the north, central, and southern parts of the Lakeshore on the mainland. In the mainland areas there are also exclusions for roads and recreational and historic features. The dramatic dunes, sandy beaches, steep bluffs, forests, inland lakes, agricultural lands, and historic structures of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore embody the rich natural and cultural history of Michigan. This wilderness designation would ensure that current and future generations will be able to enjoy solitude and recreation in these treasured areas. Even as the Sleeping Bear dunes are ever- changing as they are sculpted by the wind, it is critical that we protect these and other natural assets from being altered by development. I hope we can have prompt consideration of this bill by the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have been asked by the President to confirm Ben Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Given the current state of the economy, and the nature of the crisis that led to the recession from which we are struggling to recover, this request has generated a great deal of controversy. I am conflicted by this nomination, and I want to explain my decision to support it. The most striking feature of the economic crisis is that it was, to a large extent, a collective failure of financial regulation. It was not a function of the normal waxing and waning of the economic cycle. Instead, our financial institutions engaged in ever-more complex, highly dubious, and risky transactions, and when the risk was exposed, it set off a chain reaction that dragged down our entire economy. The lack of adequate financial regulations was a major cause of the crisis. We must reform that system on an urgent basis. Consumers' rights need to be protected. But in addition to the failures of the system, part of the crisis was made possible by collective failures of those entrusted to oversee the financial system. Chairman Bernanke was one of those people. He and others should have been more forceful in reining in the greed-driven abuses and excesses of our financial sector. Some of my colleagues who share this view believe that this fact alone should justify a ``no'' vote on Chairman Bernanke. But I believe that we must weigh both Chairman Bernanke's role and actions before the crisis, but also those since the crisis began. In other words, was he a bigger part of the problem or the solution? First, while Chairman Bernanke should have acted more forcefully to try to prevent the crisis, most of the abuses that brought it about occurred in areas outside the Federal Reserve's primary areas of oversight. I also believe that Chairman Bernanke's and the Federal Reserve's recent support for enhanced financial regulation are crucial to correcting some of the structural failures that lead to the crisis. Second, the Federal Reserve's actions helped to prevent this tragic recession from becoming a second Great Depression. This is no small thing. As bad as the last several months have been, they would have been even worse but for Chairman Bernanke's leadership. Lastly, it is clear that Chairman Bernanke's role in preventing a deeper crisis has earned him some confidence in our financial markets. A defeat of his renomination carries the risk of shaking these markets, at the very moment we need them to operate in a stable fashion so as to help boost our fragile economic recovery. When making the decision of whether to support this nomination, I end up believing that Chairman Bernanke's performance in addressing the economic crisis and his current efforts to significantly enhance financial regulation to help prevent future crises, outweigh his past mistakes. On balance, I believe that Chairman Bernanke should be given the opportunity to continue to help pull us through this difficult period, and I will vote in favor of his confirmation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan with Senator Al Franken. We heard a great deal of troubling news out of Afghanistan over the past few months. Casualties have increased and the political situation has been unsettled. Based on what we saw and heard during our trip, I am somewhat more optimistic that we will succeed in Afghanistan. I am a lot more optimistic now than after my last visit to Afghanistan in September. Success, to me, is defined as preventing the Taliban from returning to power at the same time we strengthen the Afghan security forces to take responsibility for Afghan security in order to ensure stability in Afghanistan. Over the course of 3 days, we met with key civilian and military leaders in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Pakistan, we met with Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani; Army Chief of Staff Kayani; and a leader from the opposition party, Ahsan Iqbal. Pakistan has taken some steps to take on elements of the Pakistan Taliban and al-Qaida but has been for the most part unwilling to take on the Afghan Taliban which uses Quetta in the south of Pakistan and North Waziristan in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas as safe havens and to attack Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we met with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry; GEN Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF; LTG David Rodriguez, Commander of the ISAF Joint Command; LTG William Caldwell, who leads the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan; and British MG Nick Carter, Commander of ISAF forces in Regional Command South. We also met with key Afghan officials, in particular President Karzai, Minister of Defense Wardak; and Minister of the Interior Atmar. Outside Kabul, we traveled to bases in Kandahar province, where we met with Canadian and American ISAF troops who are fully embedded in a partnership, i.e., living side-by- side with Afghan security forces. Our men and women in uniform are performing magnificently. We visited with our troops in the field in Kandahar, and they are living and operating in a difficult environment with only basic accommodations. Yet their morale is high and they are eager to carry out their mission. And they have some of the best leadership our military has to offer in ISAF Commander GEN Stanley McChrystal, Lieutenant General Rodriguez, and Lieutenant General Caldwell. On the civilian side, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and his team are putting in place the diplomatic and technical expertise in Kabul and the field to match our military effort. One reason I am more optimistic now than when I visited Afghanistan in September is our counterinsurgency strategy is taking hold. Our troops are comfortable with the new focus on securing the Afghan people. This requires that our troops remain with the Afghan people and not just clearing towns and villages of Taliban and then leaving the Afghans to fend for themselves when the Taliban return. Our troops understand and embrace this people-centered approach. As British MG Nick Carter, Commander of the coalition forces in the south, said: If we show confidence and mutual trust, the population will look after us. The Afghan people are more optimistic than they have been in the recent past. A recent ABC News survey found that 70 percent of the Afghans polled said Afghanistan is headed in the right direction, a significant jump from a year ago. Over 60 percent of Afghans expect their children will have a better life. The Taliban remain extremely unpopular, and 68 percent of Afghans continue to support the presence of our troops in their country. I have long been convinced that our principal mission in Afghanistan should be training the Afghan security forces. That drove my belief that we should not focus on adding more U.S. combat forces, except where we needed to train, equip, and support Afghan security forces. As I put it when the President was considering additional combat forces, I supported a show of commitment but said commitment could be shown by additional trainers and support personnel, along with a flow of equipment to Afghan forces. I expressed then and believe now our major mission should be a surge of Afghan forces to take on the Taliban. Afghan security forces will ultimately win or lose the long battle with the Taliban. Our support will help, but our growing presence has a downside: a growing footprint, which is the physical and rhetorical propaganda target for the Taliban. We heard in our conversations that President Obama's West Point speech in December has had a tangible, positive impact in ways that I believe are the most significant in Afghanistan. According to LTG Bill Caldwell, the head of our NATO training command, the number of new recruits signing up for the Afghan Army has skyrocketed from 3,000 in November to over 11,000 recruits in training today. The training command has had to turn recruits back because they didn't have enough trainers on hand. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us, forcefully and clearly, that what energized the Afghan leadership to call for and to reach out to new recruits was the July 2011 date President Obama set for the beginning of reductions in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Even more than the pay increase, which was announced for Afghan troops, Lieutenant General Caldwell said setting that date by President Obama made clear to the Afghan Government and to the Afghan people that President Obama means business when he says our presence in Afghanistan is not an open-ended commitment. Afghan leaders became focused on planning for the shift in principal responsibility from coalition forces to their forces that is highlighted by that July 2011 date, and they took urgent steps to increase recruitment to the Afghan Army. While it is too early to determine if the surge in U.S. combat forces will have the effect President Obama and General McChrystal intend, it is not too early, in other words, to see a positive effect toward accomplishing the mission of strengthening and training the Afghan Army. A key to the success of that mission will be partnering with the Afghan security forces. In Regional Command South's Kandahar area, which we visited, coalition and Afghan units are partnering on a one- to-one basis at all levels, from planning at the headquarters down to operations at the platoon level, and Afghans are taking the lead in operations. When I visited Helmand Province in the south in September, there were about five U.S. marines for every one Afghan soldier. In the coming months, additional Afghan forces will be arriving in Helmand so, by April, coalition and Afghan units will be partnered on a one-to-one basis as they conduct the key mission of providing security in the Helmand River Valley. We were informed Afghan forces will be leading that vital and dangerous mission. Senator Franken and I saw up close how partnering of coalition and Afghan forces is being put into operation. This is not just about joint operations, though that is part of it. It is about Afghan and coalition troops living together and integrating their daily lives. This partnering is at the heart of our troops' mission, which is to prepare Afghan security forces to take responsibility for their nation's security. Some fully integrating partnering in the field is already occurring. General Rodriguez promised us he will get data on how many of the units in the field that are planning and operating with coalition units are fully integrated and how often and how many Afghan units are leading significant operations. While we didn't need more combat troops for the partnering mission--the shortfall being in the number of Afghan troops--the increase in Afghan units partnering with us is a significant advance. Our military leaders often describe our counterinsurgency doctrine as shape, clear, hold, and build. But this falls short by one key goal. To shape, clear, hold, and build must be added ``transition,'' meaning our goal must be to transition responsibility for Afghanistan's security to their security forces. The commanders in the field we talked to get this, and their fully integrated partnering with Afghan security forces is the key to this transition. While I am pleased with the speed with which partnering is occurring in the field, I am disappointed with the shortfall in trainers needed for the Afghan Army and police. Currently, only 37 percent of the required U.S. and NATO trainers for building the Afghan Army and police are on hand in Afghanistan or, numerically, 1,574 out of a requirement for more than 4,235 trainers. Lieutenant General Caldwell's training command has been promised the first 1,000 of the 30,000 U.S. soldiers flowing into the theater with that surge, and 150 of that 1,000 have already arrived. At the same time, NATO countries remain 90 percent short of meeting the ISAF mission requirements for trainers with less than 200 non-U.S. trainers deployed against a non-U.S. NATO commitment of about 2,000. Only 200 have arrived on the scene. Another 200 NATO trainers were pledged by NATO members in December but without a timeline for when those trainers would arrive in theater. That is simply unacceptable. Those NATO countries that are either unwilling or unable to send additional combat troops into the fight in Afghanistan should be able to help provide trainers for basic training who operate away from the frontlines. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us, any well-trained U.S. or coalition soldier could instruct Afghan soldiers in the 8-week course of basic training. A top priority for our NATO allies at the London conference, which I believe is this week, needs to be closing the gap in trainers for the Afghan Army and police. Another area where there has been progress is on equipping the Afghan security forces, and that is critical to accelerating the growth of the Afghan Army and police. The training command reports that the equipment requirements for the Army and police have been identified and listed, and actions are underway to meet those needs, including with equipment coming out of Iraq as U.S. forces draw down there. This month, equipment began to flow from the Iraq theater to Afghanistan, and Lieutenant General Caldwell's staff expects that over 250 of over 1,300 humvees from Iraq will begin to arrive this month to meet the needs of the Afghan police. This was made possible by the language in the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes the transfer of nonexcess as well as excess defense equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan as U.S. forces draw down in Iraq. Finally, relative to plans for the reintegration of lower level Taliban fighters, the Karzai government has been working closely with General McChrystal's staff, under the leadership of a British major general, to construct a plan offering incentives to low- and mid-level Taliban fighters who are willing to lay down their weapons and recognize the Afghan Government's authority. Incentives would include amnesty and jobs programs for reintegrating former fighters. President Karzai has said he will be ready to issue this plan within a month or so, and U.S. officials expect to be fully supportive. It will take a few months after that to make the plan operational. While there is apparently no progress to negotiate with higher level Taliban to end the violence and become politically active, it does not reduce the need to chip away at that lower level Taliban group. We read in the press today that progress is being made, as a matter of fact, with local leaders in Afghanistan in that endeavor. In conclusion, we saw some signs of progress on our visit in a number of critical ways--in training and equipping Afghan security forces; in partnering closely in the field with the Afghan security forces; in a perception and reality of optimism among the military, civilian officials, and the Afghan people; and in devising a plan for reintegrating Taliban fighters who lay down their arms. We have the right strategy and mission for stabilizing the security situation and transitioning responsibility for Afghanistan's future to the Afghan Army and people. While we are on the right track now, we have a long way to go before we can feel confident that the tide has turned. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Office of Rural Development within the U.S. Department of Agriculture will say farewell to a dedicated colleague and friend later this week. Frank J. Tuma, Director of Community Programs for the Agency in Michigan, is retiring after 37 dedicated years of public service, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to recognize this significant milestone. Frank began his Federal career with the Peace Corp and spent 2 years in the Philippines. He later accepted a position with the Farmers Home Administration, which would become the Office of Rural Development, where he has served the interests of rural Michigan for 31 years as part of the Community Programs Division. Throughout Frank's 31 years, he has consistently provided invaluable guidance and leadership on countless issues and projects. During the past 5 years, Frank has served as the Director of Community Programs, where he has led efforts to bring critical funding to rural communities across Michigan. Countless communities now have safe drinking water and efficient waste water systems that protect the environment due to the efforts of Frank and his team. Those who have worked with Frank describe him as devoted, loyal, and passionate about his work and the people with which he works, qualities that will surely be missed by his colleagues and friends. Beyond his personal qualities, he has distinguished himself through a number of impressive accomplishments and has served as a mentor to many on his staff. The Rural Development National Office has turned to Frank many times over the years for his input and recommendations on new processes and systems. He was instrumental in creating, testing, and implementing the CPAP System, a computer program that compiles data and underwrites loans and grants for water and sewer projects. I am proud to join citizens and communities across rural Michigan in thanking Frank Tuma for his dedication, focus, and persistent efforts as a Federal employee. Frank has forged a wonderful legacy, and I know he and Connie are looking forward to many years together in retirement.

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 for Thursday, February 4, 2010, entitled, ``Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine how some politically powerful foreign officials, their relatives, or close associates--referred to in international agreements as ``Politically Exposed Persons'' or PEPs--have used the services of U.S. professionals and U.S. financial institutions to bring millions of dollars in suspect funds into the United States to advance their interests. Four case histories will illustrate how some PEPs have used U.S. lawyers, realtors, escrow agents, lobbyists, bankers, and others to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering and anti-corruption safeguards. It will also look at how some U.S. professionals have actively helped PEPs avoid bank scrutiny or facilitated suspect transactions with no questions asked. The hearing will also examine whether U.S. policies and practices to combat foreign corruption and money laundering need strengthening. Witnesses will include government agencies, including the State Department, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), as well as lawyers, a realtor, and representatives of financial institutions. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Laura Stuber of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 202-224-9505.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now debating a resolution that would raise the Federal debt ceiling, allowing the Federal Government to borrow enough money to meet its obligations. I doubt anyone in this Chamber is happy at the prospect of approving another such increase. I know I am not. Yet we must approve it. Failure to pass this resolution would do incalculable harm to our government's standing with financial markets and endanger nearly every activity the government undertakes. It would throttle the faint, fragile signs of recovery from the deepest financial crisis in 75 years. Refusal to pass this resolution is not an option. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to the jobs and income of every American. Yet the magnitude of this action is staggering. If successful in this necessary endeavor, we will authorize the Treasury to carry more than $13 trillion dollars in debt. That is more than $42,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. While the debt itself is enormous, the rate to which we have been adding to it in recent years is equally staggering. The year President Clinton left office, the government ran a $236 billion surplus. Yet, after 8 years of Republican leadership, that surplus evaporated into a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion deficit the day President Obama took office. The message of these numbers is simple: We cannot go on as we are. If we do not change our budget policies, and change them a great deal, we will plunge our economy into deep depression. Discretionary spending and nondiscretionary spending alike must be addressed. While some have successfully politicized earmark spending and discretionary spending programs, good and bad alike, the simple fact is that merely addressing these issues will not balance our budgets. In addition to meaningful spending reforms, we must also engage in meaningful revenue reforms. The Bush-era tax cuts have already added trillions to our debt. Most should not be renewed. We also should end loopholes that allow corporations to hide income in offshore entities and people to hide their assets and income overseas. But the fact is that most of our budget choices are not easy. And it is precisely because these choices are so difficult that we find ourselves where we are now. So it is worth considering how we got into this situation and how we might get out of it and whether the amendment to this resolution to be offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg presents a possible solution. First, let me respond to those who seem to have just recently discovered the importance of the Federal debt. Many of the people bemoaning budget deficits today are the same people who advocated a series of policies under the previous administration that added greatly to our deficits, including enormous tax cuts mainly for the wealthiest. No effort was made to pay for that policy or the two wars. They were financed by debt. In fact, to the extent that our budget outlook is significantly worse at the end of this decade than it was in the beginning, decisions by the previous administration are by far the biggest contributor to the problem. In parceling out the blame for our massive deficit, one expert said, the Obama administration ``is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far angrier with the starting pitcher.'' However we reached this point, it is our responsibility now to address the consequences of failing to act. That is why I believe the amendment offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg is worthy of consideration. Briefly, they propose to establish a task force to recommend changes to our budget policies to address our long-term fiscal crisis. The task force would consist of 18 members: 16 Members of Congress, equally divided between House and Senate and majority and minority, and 2 administration officials, the Treasury Secretary and another Presidential appointee. Recommendations would require approval of 14 of the commission's 18 members. Those recommendations would be referred to the Budget Committee and other committees of jurisdiction in each Chamber and then move automatically to floor votes in each Chamber, where passage would require a three-fifths vote. There is much to recommend this approach. Our fiscal problem is so large partly because it is so politically difficult to address. Repairing our finances will require some combination of spending cuts and tax increases, and spending cuts and tax increases are rarely politically popular. The use of a task force to recommend difficult but necessary choices for the common good has been successful in the past, in several rounds of military base closings and with the Greenspan Commission on Social Security reform in 1983. But this approach is not without flaw. One is the structure of the task force, which would include two executive branch appointees. Some have argued that the legislative commission must include members from the executive branch to achieve Presidential buy-in on the commission's proposal. And I agree that gaining the support of the administration is vital in this effort. But in seeking that buy-in, I do not believe it is either necessary or proper to give executive branch officials votes, which are potentially decisive votes, on recommendations that would bypass the Senate's rules and procedures. The proper way to achieve Presidential buy-in is through Presidential communication and consultation and the threat of an actual Presidential veto of a task force proposal, if passed by the Congress, if it is objectionable to the President. The appropriate buy-in before Congress acts could also be advanced with ex officio membership for the two executive appointees. I was pleased that the task force proposal we are voting on today no longer gives the task force power to recommend changes to the Standing Rules of the Senate. That is a welcome change from its prior iterations. Successfully tackling our fiscal crisis will require far- reaching legislation, and procedural hurdles in both chambers make passing any far-reaching legislation extraordinarily difficult. But any permanent procedural changes in our rules should be made by the Members themselves in each Chamber and not through this process. Despite my reservations, particularly about voting membership for executive branch officials on a congressional commission that has the power to bypass the normal rules of our body for consideration of its recommendations, I believe Senators Conrad and Gregg have offered a way forward. Their 60-vote requirement for positive congressional approval of the task force's recommendations does significantly protect congressional prerogatives. It also is clear that our current political climate and ways of doing business have been unequal to the task. Addressing our deficit requires bold action. The consequences of failure to act are too severe for us to miss this chance to act. I will vote for the Conrad-Gregg proposal. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I speak today in tribute to one of the citizens of my own hometown of Detroit, one of the thousands of decent, hard-working, community-minded Detroiters who make me so proud to call the city my home. You will not find Rayman Dodson in the history books or the newspapers. But for the last 80 years, since he graduated from Northwestern High School, you would have found him doing what so many other Detroiters have done: working hard, and doing his part, building the lives that make up our city. As an employee of Ford, Chrysler, the city's street railway, and in the homes of several of Detroit's most prominent citizens, Rayman earned a living sufficient for him and his beloved wife Margaret to buy a home on the city's east--side a place for Margaret to display her crystal collection. For decades, he has contributed to Mayflower Congregational Church of Christ. Several years ago, Rayman lost his sight but not his interest in the world around him or his ability to delight his friends. Many of those friends are preparing to help him celebrate his 100th birthday. I wish him well on that day, and congratulate him on a century well lived.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to share today with the Senate my congratulations to the Central Michigan University Chippewas football team, champions of the Mid-American Conference and of the 2010 GMAC Bowl, on a successful and exciting season. On January 6, 2010, in Mobile, AL, the Chippewas won their 12th game of the season, against just two losses, defeating Troy University, 44- 41, in two overtimes in the GMAC Bowl. It was truly one of the college football season's most thrilling games. Down by 12 points in the fourth quarter to a talented Troy team, the Chippewas came back to take the lead. They did not flinch when Troy tied the game with a last-second field goal to send the game into overtime, and persevered through two overtimes to triumph. As expected, quarterback Dan LeFevour played a big role in the victory. LeFevour, a senior, had already become major college football's all-time leader in total touchdowns, set a long list of Mid- American Conference records, and become the only player in NCAA history with both 12,000 career passing yards and 2,500 career rushing yards. At the GMAC Bowl, LeFevour completed 33 of 55 passes for 395 yards, passing for one touchdown and rushing for another in overtime. Another Chippewa star, receiver Antonio Brown, caught 13 of LeFevour's passes for 178 yards, and had 203 yards in kickoff returns, including a 95- yard return for a touchdown that helped kick off CMU's fourth-quarter comeback. It was a proud moment not just for CMU and Michigan, but across the Midwest, as the Chippewas broke a 14-game bowl losing streak for Mid- American Conference teams. The team's competitiveness, skill, determination, and grit generated great pride not only in Mount Pleasant, CMU's home, but across the State of Michigan, which is home to half the Chippewas' roster. I join the proud citizens of Michigan in congratulating the Chippewas on a fantastic season, and enter the names of the team's players and coaches into the Record as permanent recognition of their success. Players: Jahleel Addae, Vince Agnew, Andrew Aguila, Deja Alexander, Bryan Anderson, Nick Bellore, Brian Bennyhoff, Jake Bentley, Shamari Benton, Matt Berning, David Blackburn, Dannie Bolden, Tim Brazzel, Antonio Brown, Reggie Brown, John Carr, Derek Carter, Landon Carter, Paris Cotton, Jon Czerwienski, Leron Eaddy, Kirkston Edwards, Jake Ekkens, James Falls, Jeff Fantuzzi, Adam Fenton, Eric Fisher, Cedric Fraser, Kashawn Fraser, Eric Fraser, Connor Gagnon, Cornelius Gallon, Josh Gordy, David Harman, Jerry Harris, Brett Hartmann, Richard Hayes, Richie Hogan, Daniel Jackson, Gary Jackson, Jason Johnson, Todd Johnson, Aaron Kaczmarski, Matt Kanitz, Darren Keyton, Larry Knight, Dan LeFevour, Jake Linklater, Jeff Maddux, Matt Maletzke, Tommy Mama, Ben Masztak, Jordan McConnell, Aaron McCord, Colin Miller, Sean Murnane, Connor Odykirk, Allen Ollenburger, Jake Olson, Mike Petrucci, Cody Pettit, Tim Phillips, Kito Poblah, Ryan Radcliff, Evan Ray, Malek Redd, Tyler Reed, Chris Reeves, Mike Repovz, Nick Reynolds, Derek Rifenbury, Caesar Rodriguez, Adam Schneid, Bryan Schroeder, Will Schwarz, D.J. Scott, Bobby Seay Jr., Valtorrey Showers, Sean Skergan, Alex Smith, Chris Starkey, Armond Staten, Darryll Stinson, Kevin Sweet, Zurlon Tipton, Matt Torres, Kyle Torzy, Shane Torzy, Carl Volny, Rocky Weaver, A.J. Westendorp, Lorenzo White, Zach Wiersma, John Williams, LaVarus Williams, Sam Williams, Cody Wilson, Jeremy Wilson, Steve Winston, Kyle Zelinsky and Frank Zombo. Coaches: Interim Head Coach Steve Stripling, Offensive Coordinator Mike Bajakian, Defensive Coordinator Tim Banks, Linebackers Coach Mark Elder, Running Backs Coach Jeff Beckles; Recruiting Coordinator and Tight Ends Coach Max Glowacki, Offensive Line Coach Don Mahoney, Special Teams and Defensive Tackles Coach Paul Volero, Graduate Assistants Ryan Oshnock and Tony Pape, Director of Football Operations Plas Presnell, and Strength and Conditioning Coach Dave Lawson.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in December, Mark Ingram, Jr. became the 75th college football player to win the Heisman Memorial Trophy as the Most Outstanding College Football Player in the United States for 2009. In winning this award, one of the most coveted and prestigious awards any college athlete can receive, Mark joined an exclusive and distinguished list of college football players, which includes many of the greatest players to ever lace up a pair of cleats. This honor must be especially gratifying for Mark as he becomes both the first person from Flint, MI, and the first player from the University of Alabama to be declared the winner of this award. This year was an especially close race. In fact, it is reported that this was one of the closest ballots in the history of the award. There are many great players on the college level today, and Mark can take particular pride in knowing that, as a sophomore, he put together a 2009 season that outshone them all. Clearly, he has earned the respect and admiration of the many that follow and cover college football on a daily basis. Mark had an outstanding sophomore season. He scored 17 touchdowns and amassed 1,658 rushing yards, a single-season school rushing record. In addition to winning the Heisman, Mark was honored as the SEC Offensive Player of the Year. These are tremendous honors, and in a emotional acceptance speech, Mark spoke about the many people and situations that helped him to develop the drive and determination necessary to excel on the gridiron. Mark grew up and played high school football in Flint, MI, and is, simply the latest athlete from this talent rich area of Michigan to excel in collegiate or professional competition. After winning this award, Mark went on to lead his football team to a 37 to 21 victory in the BCS Championship Game, which was played in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA, on January 7. In that game, Mark scored a late touchdown that sealed his team's victory. He rushed for 116 yards in 22 carries, which helped his team secure a hard fought victory and earned him recognition as the offensive player of the game. While his exceptional athletic qualities are now well known to many, I am equally delighted to know that Mark also has distinguished himself in the classroom. This, to me, speaks volumes about his character, focus, and determination. His future appears to be bright both on and off of the football field. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Mark Ingram, Jr. on this most impressive achievement. I wish him the best for a long and rewarding career, both on and off of the gridiron.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 65 years ago, a young Canadian serving his nation was struck by German artillery fire on a Normandy battlefield. The blast tore away his right arm and shoulder, and at a field hospital, a chaplain performed last rites on young Joseph James Lynch. It is the good fortune of the Detroit Red Wings hockey club and thousands of fans in Michigan and across the United States and Canada that ``Budd'' Lynch survived the loss of his right arm with his life, his talent, and his sense of humor intact. Now 92 years old, Budd remains a leading citizen of Hockeytown after 60 years as a radio and television broadcaster, publicity and community affairs executive and public address announcer. His broadcasting skills have been widely honored: He is a member of the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame and a winner of the Ty Tyson Award for Excellence in Sports Broadcasting from the Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association. In 1985, he received the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award, the highest honor in hockey broadcasting, and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. As much as his talent at the microphone, it is Budd Lynch's unstoppable good humor that has endeared him to generations of hockey fans. Only someone with Budd's upbeat personality could refer to himself as ``the one-armed bandit.'' But even many of Budd's many fans don't know of all he has done for his community. For 20 years, he has hosted an annual charity golf tournament, with proceeds benefitting the Guidance Center, a Wayne County nonprofit organization that provides services including substance abuse and mental health counseling, parenting skills training, literacy promotion and educational programs for metro Detroit families. And he has spent countless hours providing guidance to fellow amputees, providing a living, breathing example that the loss of a limb does not stand in the way of a life lived joyfully. The city of Wyandotte, which Budd has long called home, has planned a salute for him later this month, with the proceeds going to the Guidance Center. He will be presented with a key to the city, but Budd Lynch already has the key to the hearts of hockey fans in Detroit and around the NHL. I salute him for his years of service and sacrifice--to Canada, to the Red Wings, to hockey, and to the community and to our State that have for so many decades been proud to claim him as one of our own.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to pay tribute to Dr. Claud Young, the founder of the Michigan Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a tireless and dedicated advocate for civil rights and social and economic justice. His significant contributions as a physician and as an advocate for social and economic justice have impacted many across Michigan and the Nation. Dr. Young's more than four decades of service will be recognized by the Michigan SCLC at a dinner in his honor. This is a fitting tribute to a man who has spent his career engaged in the noble fight for justice for all. In 1970, Dr. Young, a noted physician, founded the Michigan Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with the mission to continue the noble efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to achieve social, economic, and political justice through nonviolence and the strength of love. Under his leadership, the Michigan SCLC has waged numerous successful battles and has had an enduring impact on the lives of many. I guess one could say, it is in his genes, having come from a family historically noted for its commitment to public service and community empowerment. Once again, I am delighted to congratulate Dr. Young, a community leader and my good friend. I wish him and the SCLC the best as they continue their important work.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize an important milestone for the city of Lansing, the 150th anniversary of its founding. This is a moment worthy of celebration, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to share the pride of the residents of Lansing with my colleagues. The city and its citizens have been an integral part of Michigan's rich history, contributing much to the progress of the State and to its citizens. In the past 150 years, the city of Lansing has grown into a thriving community, and it is affectionately referred to by its residents as ``the small city with the big city feel.'' The city of Lansing had a rather humble beginning. In fact, Lansing's tenure as the capital of Michigan exceeds its history as a city. Lansing has served as Michigan's capital since 1847, when it was moved from Detroit. Chosen largely for its central location and its equal distance from some of Michigan's larger cities, the small township with fewer than 100 residents located 40 miles from the nearest railroad was designated the capital of Michigan. On February 15, 1859, the town of Lansing officially became a city. In the 1870s, Elijah E. Myers began to design the capitol structure that has endured as Michigan's center of government. The capitol building was completed in 1879. Events in Lansing's early history helped to shape the city's rich culture and heritage. Transportation vastly improved in 1865 when Lansing was connected to the State railroad system. With this advance in infrastructure, business and industry in Lansing grew steadily throughout the 1870s. In 1887, R.E. Olds produced the first horseless carriage in Lansing, and in 1903, Olds Motor Works was the first car company to use an assembly line and interchangeable parts in the production of automobiles. A thriving business community attracted many new residents to Lansing, which included a major migration of African Americans and other workers from the South, as well as returning soldiers from WWI and WWII. This hardworking and diverse population helped to shape Lansing's distinct character. Lansing also is home to many nationally recognized institutions. Among them is the Ingham Medical Center, which opened its doors in 1980 as the world's first arthroscopic surgery center. Just next door, in East Lansing, is home to one of our country's leading universities, Michigan State University. Originally named the Michigan Agricultural College, MSU has educated many throughout the State and from across the Nation since 1855. In 1969, Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., became the first African American to head a major research university when he was appointed president of Michigan State University. Another impressive landmark is the Michigan Library and Historical Center, which is just a short walk from the Michigan State capitol. It opened on March 6, 1989, and became the second largest State library in the Nation. The city has endured its share of challenges through the years, from natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, to epidemics and economic downturns. We once again find ourselves in a defining moment in our State's history, as we continue to navigate one of the deepest economic recessions in decades. It will be in Lansing where our Governor and State legislators will work to craft policies that will steer Michigan toward a more prosperous future. I am proud to recognize Lansing's history and to honor all who have made significant contributions over the years. It is Lansing's legacy of policymaking and its rich history that has created a diverse and thriving community, one that will continue to grow and prosper for generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the health insurance provider annual fee in the so-called merged Senate health care reform bill did not distinguish between nonprofits and for-profit insurance companies in this country, although our current tax law properly does make the distinction. I urged that the managers' package modify the fee to continue to recognize the distinction. Imposing the annual fee on true non-profits, particularly those with high pay-out rates to beneficiaries, would have pushed many of those true non-profits into deep financial difficulties and would have caused significant hardships on the families who rely on their services. Some nonprofit insurers have not maximized the amount they pay out in medical expenses to beneficiaries. That is why I urged the managers to include in the managers' package a provision exempting from the tax only those nonprofits with very high payout rates. Those good performers are committed to their policyholders rather than to profits for stockholders, which is the goal of the for-profits. Those good performing nonprofits are unable, as a result, to absorb the fees. The managers' amendment specifies two ways for nonprofits to be exempt from the fee. The first way for a nonprofit insurer to be exempt from the fee: one, it can not refuse to insure anyone in the State and is the State's insurer of last resort; two, its premium prices are regulated by its State insurance regulator; and three, it must pay out in medical expenses 100 percent or more of its premium revenues in the individual market. The second way for a nonprofit to be exempt: the nonprofit insurer must pay out a very high percentage of its premium dollars--at least 90 percent--in medical expenses in each of the three major market segments: individual market, small group market, and the large group market; and it also must have an even higher overall payout rate of at least 92 percent. A nonprofit that compresses its margins that far beyond its peers for the benefit of its policyholders also warrants the exemption. These exemptions continue the distinction that our tax law has recognized--that true nonprofit insurance providers should not be treated the same as their for-profit counterparts.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Montana for the extraordinary work he has put in on this bill for so long, so many months, so many years. Thanks also go, of course, to the Democratic leader, our majority leader; Senator Dodd; and others who have worked so hard to get us here. We are in a pivotal moment in the long fight to reform our health care system. Everyone should, by now, be well aware of the history--how Presidents of both parties have tried and failed to achieve reform and how, after months of painstaking review, we have arrived at this instant, closer than ever to health care reform. It would be impossible to fashion legislation on an issue so massive and so complex on which all could agree in every detail. Those seeking perfection will have to look outside this Chamber or, for that matter, in any piece of complex legislation. But when they look outside the walls of this Capitol, Senators will also find problems that dwarf the imperfections in this bill. They will find a broken health care system, one in which we pay vastly more than other wealthy nations for care that is, in many cases, demonstrably inferior. They will find Americans struggling to afford the health care coverage they have and employers struggling to provide insurance to their employees. They will find manufacturers struggling under a costly health care burden, from which their international competitors were long ago freed. They will find employee and employer alike plagued by never-ending uncertainty about the cost and availability of health insurance, an instability that haunts families and hinders job creation. They will find costs rising so fast they threaten to swallow the rest of the Federal budget and sink family budgets. They will find astonishing amounts of money spent, not on better care or innovative treatments but on overhead and bureaucracy. They will find millions of Americans with no coverage at all--a tragedy for the uninsured and a source of inefficiency and expense that make health care more expensive for all of us. So the choice before us now is whether any imperfections we might see in this bill outweigh the mountain of evidence that our current system is in dire need of repair. It is between moving forward on a significant repair of a broken system or quashing yet another attempt to reform health care in surrender to the status quo and to the rhetoric of distortion and fear. To me, this choice is clear: We cannot wait any longer for health care reform. The people of my State cannot wait. The people of this Nation cannot wait. Now is the time for all those years of frustrated effort, all the research and analysis, all the debate and discussion, for us to reform a broken system. We must vote for cloture on the managers' amendment before us and continue to vote for cloture on the endless filibusters that confront us because we cannot wait. We cannot wait any longer to reform this system because its costs are out of control. In 1990, this Nation, 12.3 percent of its gross domestic product on health care. That is $1 in $8. By 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, estimates that figure will increase to 20 percent, and $1 in every $5 will go to health care. CMS estimates that after spending about $6,000 per capita on health care in 2003, we will spend more than $13,000 per capita in 2018, more than doubling our per-person expenditures in 15 years. This translates directly into unsustainable costs for the American people. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, thousands fewer of our businesses are offering insurance than a decade ago, a clear sign they can no longer sustain cost increases of 6 percent or more, year after year. If we do nothing, these costs will continue to rise at a rate which will swallow the budgets of families, businesses, and government. We cannot wait any longer because, even for those fortunate enough to have insurance where they work, they are increasingly unsure it will be there when they need it most. Every Member of this body has heard from constituents who thought they had solid health insurance, only to find out their insurer had wriggled out of paying for desperately needed care or found a convenient preexisting condition that voided their coverage or capped their coverage, so they faced a crushing choice between treatments they had to have and costs they could not afford. Even in cases where families have health insurance, medical emergencies can leave debilitating costs in their wake. According to a study in the American Journal of Medicine, 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in the United States in 2007 involved medical costs; and even more compelling, three-quarters of those bankruptcies involved people who had health insurance when they got sick. There can be no more clear sign of the need to act than the fact that having health insurance is no insurance against bankruptcy from medical costs. We cannot wait any longer because so much of the enormous cost at the heart of this health care crisis is money spent on that having little or nothing to do with quality care. For example, for those who purchase insurance in the individual market, roughly 30 percent of the costs they pay will stem from the insurance company's administrative expenses--on bureaucracy, not medicine. A 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, in 1999, Americans spent over $1,000 per capita on health care administration costs--more than $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation spent on paperwork and redtape. Electronic medical records, which make administration more efficient and improve the quality of care, are still not in use for most patients. Finally, we cannot wait any longer because the inefficiencies of our system are crushing us and our budgets and, even more pointedly, because so many lives are at stake. One hundred forty thousand Americans have lost their lives since 2000 because they lacked health insurance. We cannot afford to walk down this road any longer. We must change direction. This bill will do it in a positive way. An analysis by the Urban Institute, using methodology developed by the Institute of Medicine, determined that since 2000, nearly 140,000 Americans have lost their lives because they lacked health insurance. Other studies show that breast cancer patients, stroke victims and other patients are, as common sense suggests, far more likely to die from their conditions if they lack adequate health insurance. These are rigorous studies that bring us to an inescapable conclusion: If we fail to act, Americans will continue to lose their lives when they need not, simply because they don't have adequate health insurance, or any health insurance at all. For these reasons and many others, it is long past time to reform our system. The question we must then answer is, will we come closer to a health care system worthy of this Nation if we pass this bill? I believe we will. The legislation before us will reform the insurance system in powerful ways, protecting patients from the host of abuses they now so often face. We will begin to control spiraling costs in many ways, and establish research centers to find new ways to improve care and lower costs. We will create powerful incentives to reduce administrative burdens and costs. And we will bring millions of Americans into the health care system, reducing the number of uninsured, and reducing what is both a burden of inefficiency on the system and a moral blemish on our Nation. We are out of time and out of excuses. Now we must choose. Choose between beginning to reform on the one hand and continuing the status quo on the other. Our individual problems with this bill cannot be allowed to overshadow the much larger problems with our health care system. Near the end of this long path toward health care reform, we cannot turn back. The Senate needs to move forward. Again, I thank my good friend from Montana and the other leaders who have made it possible for us to get to this point.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No objection. I assume that is for 10 minutes each?

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I don't object to the unanimous consent request on that condition. I think the same occurred earlier this afternoon for reasons that have to do with trying to get this bill going.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for the few minutes we have this afternoon in support of the appropriations bill that is before us, the Defense appropriations bill. Senator McCain and I and other members of the Armed Services Committee have spent a lot of time each year authorizing important programs to support our troops, protect our troops, and support their families in a whole host of ways. Hopefully, it will authorize funds that can help us succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. That bill is now law, and in front of us is an appropriations bill that contains most of those same provisions--not all but most of the same provisions. It is critically important that this appropriations bill be passed. There are differences in this body and between this body and the House of Representatives about the policies that are involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. That is normal. That is the way it should be. We can have democratic debates inside this great democracy of ours. We don't have to agree, and we don't on many of the policies involved in these two war efforts. Where I believe this body is unanimous is that we are determined to support our troops when they are in the field regardless of whether we agree with the particular strategy they are supporting or whether we happen to have supported their mission. It has been the tradition of the Congress, once a decision has been democratically arrived at to send troops to the field, that we support those troops. This appropriations bill has critically important provisions in it to support our troops. I believe there is unanimity and consensus in this body on those provisions. I will focus on a few of those provisions. We have added significant funds. One example is the so-called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or MRAP. These are life-and-death matters we are talking about. These vehicles are a perfect example of that. The faster we can get the advanced MRAPs to the field in Afghanistan, the more we can get to the field in Afghanistan, the fewer Americans are going to be killed in Afghanistan. So we have funds in here--more than actually were requested--to send over 6,600 new MRAP vehicles, all-terrain vehicles that can function better there than the ones we sent to Iraq. These all-terrain vehicles have been designed and developed in record time in order to get them to our troops. We should be acting in record time on this appropriations bill, and there are many reasons for that. Surely, getting more MRAPs more quickly into the field is one of those reasons. We have an organization called the Joint IED Defeat Organization whose sole purpose and mission is to come up with the strategies and technologies to defeat these IEDs, these improvised explosive devices that are killing our troops. In order to defeat these devices or train our troops who are deployed there in how to identify and protect themselves against IEDs, we have $1.8 billion in this appropriations bill for that organization. They have a laser mission to defeat the IEDs. We have to get this money to them. This bill needs to be signed. The President has to sign it--and he will--so we can get these funds as quickly as possible to our troops. We need to adopt this appropriations bill. We have pay raises and health programs in the bill. We add $1.3 billion more than the President requested for the Defense Health Program. This covers shortfalls in private sector care, increases funds for medical research, including what is called TBI, which are the brain injuries, as well as PTSD, which has so afflicted our troops in these wars. We add additional funds for those programs. The quicker the bill is signed, the faster those funds get appropriated and spent, the better off our wounded warriors who suffer from TBI and from psychological health problems are going to be. In Afghanistan now, one of the key issues is going to be whether we can get the Afghan troops trained quickly enough, supported quickly enough, given the equipment they need so they, hopefully earlier rather than later, can join with us, partner with us, and take responsibility for their own security. Regardless of people's differences over the policies and strategies in Afghanistan, I believe there is a consensus in this body--no matter what the vote ends up being on the bill, whether people vote for the bill or against the bill, I would think all of us believe we must quickly provide funds to train, support, and sustain the Afghan security forces. We want to fund that effort in this bill at $6.6 billion. Counternarcotics in Afghanistan. We all know the narcotics industry in Afghanistan is being used to support the Taliban. We want to continue efforts to train Afghan counternarcotics forces and support U.S. counternarcotics and interdiction activities in Afghanistan, so $300 million in this bill is going to do that. We have a fund called the Commander's Emergency Response Program or CERP. That fund has been used to great advantage. This bill provides $1.2 billion for that Commander's Emergency Response Program; $1 billion of that is for that program in Afghanistan and $200 million of the CERP program in Iraq. This represents about twice as much CERP funding for Afghanistan as we had in fiscal year 2009. Those CERP funds are able to provide very quickly support and economic development village by village. Our commanders are able, without going through a whole lot of red tape, to make relatively small investments in things which make a difference, in terms of the security of our troops and the betterment of the lives of the Afghans. It has had a huge, positive impact in terms of the perception of the Afghan community about us, satisfying them that we are there for their benefit, not just for our benefit. We are not occupying Afghanistan. When we leave Afghanistan, we want to leave Afghanistan in better shape than we found it. The CERP funds are a major contribution to that goal. One of the things we have authorized in the bill, which Senator McCain and I and members of the Armed Services Committee have brought to this body, was adopted by this body, and signed into law, was the authorization to use those CERP funds to help reintegrate, where we can, Afghan Taliban fighters into Afghan society--those who will renounce violence against the Government of Afghanistan and make a commitment to participate in civilian life. We are able to actually have the funds that are so essential to make that program work. We do not yet have a program in place. That is being worked on as we speak. But these funds need to be available to support that program of reintegration of Afghans, those low-level Taliban people who are with the Taliban not for any ideological reason but because they get some pay from the Taliban. Not all the members of the Taliban fall into that category. But for the ones who do, this funding becomes critical. Mr. President, I will only take a few minutes more, but I did want to highlight a few additional points that I believe my colleagues should know about. The first area pertains to three initiatives that originated in the Defense authorization bill that relate to the continuing fight against al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations. The bill includes nearly all of the $1.6 billion the administration requested for the coalition support fund, which is used to reimburse key partner nations, particularly Pakistan, for support provided to the United States in Operation Enduring Freedom and Overseas Contingency Operations. It includes $350 million in fiscal year 2010, the full amount authorized, for the train and equip program to build the capacity of foreign militaries to conduct counterterrorism operations and support military or stabilization operations in which the U.S. participates. As clarified in the fiscal year 2010 NDAA, this authority can be used to build the capacity of ISAF coalition partners to prepare their training teams and special operations forces to be available for use in Afghanistan. The bill also provides the full $100 million authorized for the authority to transfer funds from DOD to the State Department to support State's security and stabilization assistance programs. The other area pertains to missile defense. The bill before us provides important funding for ballistic missile defense programs. It supports the decisions made by Secretary Gates and President Obama to restructure the missile defense program with a greater focus on regional missile defense against existing missile threats. These changes include the termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program, and cancel procurement of additional airborne laser aircraft. This defense appropriations act also supports the decision to cap deployment of the ground-based midcourse defense system at 30 operational ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, rather than the 44 previously planned for deployment. The bill supports funding for alternative missile defense systems in Europe, to defend against current and future Iranian ballistic missiles. It also includes an additional $57 million, above the budget request of $169 million, to procure more standard Missile-3 interceptors for our Aegis ballistic missile defense system. This type of interceptor will be at the heart of the new missile defense plan for Europe. The amendment also provides the full $1.1 billion requested for the terminal high altitude area defense, THAAD, system, which is another key element of our regional missile defense capabilities. I believe my 10 minutes is up. I thank my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, for allowing me to go first. The order of priority was that he go immediately after someone speaking on this side. But as always, his courtesy shines through to me, and I very much appreciate it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that a military fellow in his office, CPT Joslyn Hemler, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the 2010 Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it has become apparent that passage of this Dorgan amendment relative to importation of prescription drugs, an amendment which I have long supported, could threaten passage of broader health care reform. If so, the perfect would become the enemy of the good. For that reason, I will vote ``no'' on the Dorgan amendment on this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to comment on recent events in Iran, the continuing protests against that nation's ruling regime, the brutal response of that regime to the legitimate protests of Iran's people, and one small step the United States can and should take to aid the people of Iran in exercising the basic human right to protest and hold their own government accountable. As my colleagues know well, student protests in Tehran and other cities took place on Dec. 7, Student Day, the anniversary of the 1953 attacks by the shah's security services that left three student protesters dead. Just as those students sought to protest against an unjust and repressive government, so did today's students. And again, Iran's government responded with intimidation, violence and repression. Iranian security forces, and paramilitary militias allied with government hard-liners, used teargas, batons and beatings to attack nonviolent protesters on the campus of Tehran University and at other universities. The government's chief prosecutor told the state- controlled news agency--apparently without irony--``So far we have shown restraint,'' and threatened even harsher methods to end the protests. Sadly, this is a recurring theme in Iran. Outraged by overwhelming evidence of fraud designed to keep President Ahmadinejad in power last June, students and other Iranians took to the streets. These nonviolent protests were met by the regime with escalating levels of brutality. According to a recent report from the human rights group Amnesty International, government-sponsored violence and repression in Iran since the election has reached the highest level in 20 years. Hundreds of people have been rounded up and imprisoned, often under appalling conditions, without access to legal representation or indeed any contact with the outside world. Iranian citizens, according to the report, were charged with vague offenses unconnected to any recognizable criminal charge under Iranian law. More than 100 were paraded before cameras in show trials, with visible signs of abuse. The Amnesty International report includes evidence that the pace of executions by the Iranian government has increased, a clear and chilling message to the regime's critics. And citizens released from detention made credible and horrific charges of abuse while in custody, including allegations of the widespread use of rape. This deplorable record is why I and six colleagues introduced a resolution last month, approved by this body, expressing the sense of the Senate that the government of Iran has routinely violated the human rights of its citizens, and calling on the Iranian government to fulfill its obligations under international law and its own constitution to honor and protect the fundamental rights to which its citizens, and all human beings, are entitled. We recognized the need for a strong statement of condemnation of the regime's behavior, and of solidarity with those Iranians seeking to exercise their right to protest. The Iranian government must know that the world is watching. Mr. President, there is more the United States can do. I draw my colleagues' attention to a notice from the State Department that the administration will waive certain provisions of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 with respect to the export of personal, Internet-based communications tools to Iran. This is an important response to the Iranian government's crackdown on its people. The regime has sharply curtailed the actions of foreign media representatives in Iran, making independent observations of the situation there difficult or impossible to report. Much of what we know about the regime's repression has come from first-hand accounts by Iranian citizens, distributed via Internet tools such as YouTube and Twitter. These media outlets have become vital, not only to those of us outside Iran seeking information about events within the country, but to Iranian citizens seeking to communicate with one another. And they are especially important given the near total absence of independent news media in Iran. The regime has undertaken, even before the June election, a systematic effort to eliminate newspapers or broadcasters that report critically on the government's activities. And Iran's Revolutionary Guards, closely connected to government hardliners, have sought to add media and communication companies to its growing commercial empire, tightening the regime's grip on communications within Iran. The State Department recently notified Congress that it intends to waive provisions of our sanctions against Iran to allow Iranians to download free, mass-market software used in activities such as e-mail, instant messaging and social networking. According to the State Department, ``U.S. sanctions on Iran are having an unintended chilling effect on the ability of companies such as Microsoft and Google to continue providing essential communications tools to ordinary Iranians. This waiver will authorize free downloads to Iran of certain nominally dual-use software (because of low-level encryption elements) classified as mass market software by the Department of Commerce and essential for the exchange of personal communications and/or sharing of information over the internet.'' Granting of this waiver is an important step in ensuring that our actions here do not impede the attempts by Iranians to exercise their human rights. I applaud the administration for its decision, and hope the people of Iran will view this as one more sign of the solidarity between them and the people of the United States. I ask that a letter to me from Richard R. Verma, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, informing the Senate Armed Services Committee of this waiver decision, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold that.