Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Monday marked the tenth anniversary of the tragic shooting at Columbine High School. The prior Thursday was the second anniversary of the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech. These horrific anniversaries have become far too common. Since the shooting at Columbine, I have spoken regularly on the Senate floor about the pressing need for common sense gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to act. Even a decade later, the very mention of Columbine High School strikes a nerve with those who hear it. Many of us can still recall with eerie detail the chaotic scenes of hundreds of terrified children running from their school as SWAT-teams descended on the building, searching for two adolescents who, before taking their own lives, murdered 12 innocent students, a teacher, and wounded two dozen others. In the years that have followed, those closest to the event have recounted how they are constantly reminded of that day by the fragments of ammunition in their bodies or the physical scars from wounds suffered that day. Many victims have described shuddering at the sight of a trench coat or being instantly transported back to the incident from the sound or smell of fireworks. The physical and emotional pain these victims have endured should be intolerable to us. Yet Congress has refused to take the necessary steps to prevent it. Our Nation suffers from a horrific epidemic of gun violence. Over 30,000 Americans die from firearms every year, nearly 12,000 of which are homicides. That is an average of 32 gun murders every day, the same number killed at Virginia Tech. While we all hope and pray that these types of public tragedies do not happen again, the truth is that the threat of gun violence has not diminished. Gun violence is preventable, however, it requires action. Without action, gun violence will continue to be found in our high schools, universities, religious institutions and our homes. For too long, victims and their families, educators and police officials around this country have cried out for sensible gun legislation that would keep guns out of the wrong hands, close the gun show loophole, reauthorize the assault weapons ban and aid law enforcement agencies in tracking gun traffickers. Passage of such legislation would serve as monumental steps toward ensuring these types of tragedies do not continue. Congress must do everything possible to reduce the level of gun violence in America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, and today I vote for its enactment into law. In these difficult economic times, this bill is needed to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to combat mortgage, securities, and other types of financial fraud. This act would put more fraud investigators, regulators, and prosecutors on the beat. It would authorize increased funding to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Postal Service, the HUD inspector general, and the Secret Service. It would also ensure that the public will be able to see the results of these investments by requiring the agencies to submit a joint report to Congress on amounts spent on fraud investigations, as well as amounts recovered. This act would also make clear that Federal mortgage fraud laws cover mortgage brokers and their agents--some of whom have wreaked a terrible toll in my State of Michigan and the country. Their misconduct has included misrepresenting mortgage terms to borrowers, convincing families to refinance their homes with mortgages that would leave them worse off financially, reaping hidden fees, and even obtaining fraudulent mortgages and stealing the funds. It is long past time to clarify and strengthen the laws that punish such wrongdoing. The act would strengthen taxpayer protections by ensuring that moneys expended through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, are protected by the Federal fraud statute. In addition, it would expand securities antifraud provisions to cover fraud involving options and futures contracts for commodities. The act would strengthen our antimoney laundering regime. The current money laundering statute outlaws financial transactions using the proceeds from certain listed unlawful activities. This act would add tax evasion to that list. The threat of criminal liability for money laundering is a powerful tool for prosecutors to use in their battles with those who dodge their tax obligations. Additionally, recent court decisions have misdefined the term ``proceeds'' from the money laundering statute to mean only the net receipts from unlawful activities. By defining that term so narrowly, these court decisions have reduced the efficacy of the statute: preventing prosecutions for numerous crimes. This act will fix these decisions and explicitly define ``proceeds'' to include not only net but gross receipts from unlawful activities. This small modification will restore the money laundering statute to its rightful place as a critical tool in the battles against fraud and illicit activity. These provisions are useful additions to Federal antimoney laundering statutes, but we should not stop here. We should also make sure that our antimoney laundering laws apply to all of the entities that may be involved in money laundering. I look forward to working with the Senate to update our antimoney laundering requirements, and continue the efforts to stop fraud, illicit activity, and tax evasion. This act will make an important contribution to ongoing efforts to root out fraud--against individuals and against our Government. It is an important part of the effort to help put our country back on solid economic footing, and I commend the bill sponsors for their work on this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Is it true that a provision in a reconciliation bill is subject to a Byrd rule point of order if it produces a change in outlays or revenues that is merely incidental to the non-budgetary, i.e., policy, components of a provision?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from North Dakota, is it true that when a reconciliation bill comes to the floor, it must meet the requirements of the Byrd rule or be subject to a 60-vote point of order?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have conducted a series of hearings and issued reports on various issues pertaining to money-laundering and tax havens, and I appreciate the benefit of the Banking Committee chairman's insight on these matters. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 before us importantly modifies the money laundering statute to include tax evasion. I believe that we should also expand anti-money laundering laws to apply to other entities involved in financial transactions. In particular, hedge funds, other private investment vehicles, and company formation agents are not subject to the same anti-money laundering regulations as others who play roles in the financial services world. Currently, unregistered investment companies, such as hedge funds and private equity funds, have limited responsibilities under the Bank Secrecy Act. For example, hedge funds themselves are not required to establish Know Your Customer programs or file suspicious activity reports. Suspicious activity and tax evasion by clients may go unnoticed by appropriate authorities. Indeed, offshore tax abuses cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $100 billion each year. Complicating the Government's ability to establish and enforce AML regulations for this industry is the fact that many private investment funds and company formation agents have largely escaped general regulatory oversight. For example, when the Securities and Exchange Commission attempted to require hedge funds to register, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the SEC, lacked the appropriate authority. I believe that the SEC's attempts were well-intentioned, but the court's findings indicate that clearer authority must be established for key sectors of the financial services industry, including hedge funds and company formation agents. Because hedge funds, private equity funds, and company formation agents are as vulnerable as other financial institutions to money launderers seeking entry into the U.S. financial system, there is no reason why they should continue to serve as pathways into the U.S. financial system for substantial funds of unknown origin. We need to establish a clear statutory mandate for these entities to implement sound anti-money laundering programs and to report on suspicious activities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today we are releasing the declassified report of the Senate Armed Services Committee's investigation into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The report was approved by the committee on November 20, 2008, and has, in the intervening period, been under review at the Department of Defense for declassification. In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse--such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan--to low ranking soldiers. Claims, such as that made by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a ``few bad apples,'' were simply false. The truth is that, early on, it was senior civilian leaders who set the tone. On September 16, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that the United States turn to the ``dark side'' in our response to 9/ 11. Not long after that, after White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called parts of the Geneva Conventions ``quaint,'' President Bush determined that provisions of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to certain detainees. Other senior officials followed the President and Vice President's lead, authorizing policies that included harsh and abusive interrogation techniques. The record established by the committee's investigation shows that senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques. Those senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses. As the committee report concluded, authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. In a May 10, 2007, letter to his troops, GEN David Petraeus said that ``what sets us apart from our enemies in this fight . . . is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings.'' With last week's release of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, opinions, it is now widely known that Bush administration officials distorted Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape ``SERE'' training--a legitimate program used by the military to train our troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations--by authorizing abusive techniques from SERE for use in detainee interrogations. Those decisions conveyed the message that abusive treatment was appropriate for detainees in U.S. custody. They were also an affront to the values articulated by General Petraeus. In SERE training, U.S. troops are briefly exposed, in a highly controlled setting, to abusive interrogation techniques used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions. The techniques are based on tactics used by Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean war for the purpose of eliciting false confessions for propaganda purposes. Techniques used in SERE training include stripping trainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting them to face and body slaps, depriving them of sleep, throwing them up against a wall, confining them in a small box, treating them like animals, subjecting them to loud music and flashing lights, and exposing them to extreme temperatures. Until recently, the Navy SERE school also used waterboarding. The purpose of the SERE program is to provide U.S. troops who might be captured a taste of the treatment they might face so that they might have a better chance of surviving captivity and resisting abusive and coercive interrogations. SERE training techniques were never intended to be used in the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. The committee's report, however, reveals troubling new details of how SERE techniques came to be used in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody. The committee's investigation uncovered new details about the influence of SERE techniques on military interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba--GTMO. According to newly released testimony from a military behavioral scientist who worked with interrogators at GTMO, ``By early October [2002] there was increasing pressure to get `tougher' with detainee interrogations'' at GTMO. (p. 50). As a result, on October 2, 2002, 2 weeks after attending interrogation training led by SERE instructors from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, JPRA, the DOD agency that oversees SERE training, the behavioral scientist and a colleague drafted a memo proposing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques at GTMO. The behavioral scientist said he was told by GTMO's intelligence chief that the interrogation memo needed to contain coercive techniques or it ``wasn't going to go very far.'' (p. 50). Declassified excerpts from that memo indicate that it included stress positions, food deprivation, forced grooming, hooding, removal of clothing, exposure to cold weather or water, and scenarios designed to convince a detainee that ``he might experience a painful or fatal outcome.'' On October 11, 2002, MG Michael Dunlavey, the Commander of JTF-170 at GTMO, requested authority to use aggressive techniques. Major General Dunlavey's request was based on the memo produced by the behavioral scientists. Major General Dunlavey's request eventually made its way to Department of Defense, DoD, General Counsel Jim Haynes' desk. Notwithstanding serious legal concerns raised by the military service lawyers, Haynes recommended that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approve 15 of the interrogation techniques requested by GTMO. On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation, authorizing such techniques as stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias--such as fear of dogs--and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli. The committee's investigation revealed that, following Secretary Rumsfeld's authorization, senior staff at GTMO drafted a standard operating procedure--SOP--for the use of SERE techniques, including stress positions, forcibly stripping detainees, slapping, and ``walling'' them. That SOP stated that ``The premise behind this is that the interrogation tactics used at U.S. military SERE schools are appropriate for use in real-world interrogations.'' Weeks later, in January 2003, trainers from the Navy SERE school travelled to GTMO and provided training to interrogators on the use of SERE techniques on detainees. (pp. 98-104). The influence of Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002, authorization was not limited to interrogations at GTMO. Newly declassified excerpts from a January 11, 2003, legal review by a special mission unit, SMU, Task Force lawyer in Afghanistan state that ``SECDEF's approval of these techniques provides us the most persuasive argument for use of `advanced techniques' as we capture possible [high value targets] . . . the fact that SECDEF approved the use of the . . . techniques at GTMO, [which is] subject to the same laws, provides an analogy and basis for use of these techniques [in accordance with] international and U.S. law.'' (p. 154). The committee's report also includes a summary of a July 15, 2004, interview with CENTCOM's then-Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, SJA, about Secretary Rumsfeld's authorization and its impact in Afghanistan. The Deputy SJA said: ``the methodologies approved for GTMO would appear to me to be legal interrogation processes. [The Secretary of Defense] had approved them. The General Counsel had approved them . . . I believe it is fair to say the procedures approved for Guantanamo were legal for Afghanistan.'' (p. 156). The committee's report provides extensive details about how the aggressive techniques made their way from Afghanistan to Iraq. In February 2003, an SMU Task Force designated for operations in Iraq obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy from Afghanistan that included aggressive techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim. (p. 158). Months later, the Interrogation Officer in Charge at Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of the SMU interrogation policy and submitted it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command to Combined Joint Task Force 7--CJTF-7--led at the time by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez. On September 14, 2003, Lieutenant General Sanchez issued an interrogation policy for CJTF-7 that authorized interrogators to use stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs to exploit detainees' fears in their interrogations of detainees. The committee's investigation uncovered documents indicating that, almost immediately after Lieutenant General Sanchez issued his September 14, 2003, policy, CENTCOM lawyers raised concerns about its legality. One newly declassified email from a CENTCOM lawyer to the Staff Judge Advocate at CJTF-7--sent just three days after the policy was issued--warned that ``Many of the techniques [in the CJTF-7 policy] appear to violate [Geneva Convention] III and IV and should not be used . . .'' (p. 203). Even though the Bush administration acknowledged that the Geneva Conventions applied in Iraq, it was not until nearly a month later that CJTF-7 revised that policy. Not only did SERE techniques make their way to Iraq, but SERE instructors did as well. In September 2003, JPRA sent a team to Iraq to provide assistance to interrogation operations at an SMU Task Force. The Chief of Human Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Task Force testified to the Committee in February 2008 that JPRA personnel demonstrated SERE techniques to SMU personnel including so-called ``walling'' and striking a detainee as they do in SERE school. (p. 175). As we heard at our September 2008 hearing, JPRA personnel were present during abusive interrogations during that same trip, including one where a detainee was placed on his knees in a stress position and was repeatedly slapped by an interrogator. (p. 176). JPRA personnel even participated in an interrogation, taking physical control of a detainee, forcibly stripping him naked, and giving orders for him to be kept in a stress position for 12 hours. In August 3, 2007, testimony to the committee, one of the JPRA team members said that, with respect to stripping the detainee, ``we [had] done this 100 times, 1000 times with our [SERE school] students.'' The committee's investigation revealed that forced nudity continued to be used in interrogations at the SMU Task Force for months after the JPRA visit. (pp. 181-182). Over the course of the investigation, the committee obtained the statements and interviews of scores of military personnel at Abu Ghraib. These statements reveal that the interrogation techniques authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002 for use at GTMO-- including stress positions, forced nudity, and military working dogs-- were used by military intelligence personnel responsible for interrogations. The Interrogation Officer in Charge in Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003 acknowledged that stress positions were used in interrogations at Abu Ghraib. (p. 212). An Army dog handler at Abu Ghraib told military investigators in February 2004 that ``someone from [military intelligence] gave me a list of cells, for me to go see, and pretty much have my dog bark at them. . . . Having the dogs bark at detainees was psychologically breaking them down for interrogation purposes.'' (p. 209). An intelligence analyst at Abu Ghraib told military investigators in May 2004 that it was ``common that the detainees on [military intelligence] hold in the hard site were initially kept naked and given clothing as an incentive to cooperate with us.'' (p. 212). An interrogator told military investigators in May 2004 that it was ``common to see detainees in cells without clothes or naked'' and says it was ``one of our approaches.'' (p. 213). The investigation also revealed that interrogation policies authorizing aggressive techniques were approved months after the CJTF-7 policy was revised to exclude the techniques, and even after the investigation into detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib had already begun. For example, an interrogation policy approved in February 2004 in Iraq included techniques such as use of military working dogs and stress positions. (p. 220). A policy approved for CJTF-7 units in Iraq in March 2004 also included aggressive techniques. While much of the March 2004 policy remains classified, newly declassified excerpts indicate that it warned that interrogators ``should consider the fact that some interrogation techniques are viewed as inhumane or otherwise inconsistent with international law before applying each technique. These techniques are labeled with a [CAUTION].'' Among the techniques labeled as such were a technique involving power tools, stress positions, and the presence of military working dogs. (pp. 220-221). Some have asked why, if it is okay for our own U.S. personnel to be subjected to physical and psychological pressures in SERE school, what is wrong with using those SERE training techniques on detainees? The committee's investigation answered that question. On October 2, 2002, LTC Morgan Banks, the senior Army SERE psychologist warned against using SERE training techniques during interrogations in an email to personnel at GTMO, writing that: [T]he use of physical pressures brings with it a large number of potential negative side effects . . . When individuals are gradually exposed to increasing levels of discomfort, it is more common for them to resist harder . . . If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate. In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain . . . Bottom line: the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low. The likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the level of resistance in a detainee is very high . . . (p. 53). Likewise, the Deputy Commander of DOD's Criminal Investigative Task Force at GTMO told the committee in 2006 that CITF ``was troubled with the rationale that techniques used to harden resistance to interrogations would be the basis for the utilization of techniques to obtain information.'' (p. 69). Other newly declassified emails reveal additional warnings. In June 2004, after many SERE techniques had been authorized in interrogations and JPRA was considering sending its SERE trainers to interrogation facilities in Afghanistan, another SERE psychologist warned: ``[W]e need to really stress the difference between what instructors do at SERE school (done to INCREASE RESISTANCE capability in students) versus what is taught at interrogator school (done to gather information). What is done by SERE instructors is by definition ineffective interrogator conduct . . . Simply stated, SERE school does not train you on how to interrogate, and things you `learn' there by osmosis about interrogation are probably wrong if copied by interrogators.'' (p. 229). If we are to retain our status as a leader in the world, we must acknowledge and confront the abuse of detainees in our custody. The committee's report and investigation makes significant progress toward that goal. There is still the question, however, of whether high level officials who approved and authorized those policies should be held accountable. I have recommended to Attorney General Holder that he select a distinguished individual or individuals--either inside or outside the Justice Department, such as retired federal judges--to look at the volumes of evidence relating to treatment of detainees, including evidence in the Senate Armed Services Committee's report, and to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to establish accountability of high-level officials--including lawyers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this budget resolution. It rightfully recognizes that our way through these difficult times is by investing in our future, with significant funding for infrastructure, energy independence and programs that ensure the safety, health, and education of our Nation's children. This budget resolution makes clear that we cannot continue to cut taxes for a handful of wealthy individuals, at the expense of the many and hope that someday the benefits will trickle down. That course of action would lead to deeper and deeper deficits. The prior administration's fiscal policies failed. They left us in difficult and uncertain times. Unemployment in my state of Michigan and across the country is sky high. The financial markets are in turmoil, and millions of hard-working Americans that still have jobs are not only concerned about their depleted savings and retirement accounts, but making their mortgage payments. And now, some of the greatest companies in our country are under great duress. Our shared ability to navigate these troubled waters will depend upon our willingness to come together. Through this budget resolution, the Senate will set the blueprint for its work to help reverse the past administration's failed fiscal policies that have been so damaging to our economy. The Budget Committee includes in this resolution deficit-neutral reserve funds to promote economic recovery and growth, investments in infrastructure, and a long overdue commitment to the health of Americans. With adequate funds, we can modernize the health care system by continuing to progress towards health information technology. With additional dollars to help support and strengthen the health care workforce, we are making a firm statement that we will no longer shirk our responsibilities and will continue to fight for the 45.7 million uninsured individuals who have not had access to health care. This budget will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It allows us to improve our educational system. And it provides tax relief to millions of middle-income Americans, including providing much-needed relief from the alternative minimum tax. Congress, and our citizens, have long known that this tax was never intended to hit middle-class families. I am also pleased that this budget paves the way for using our committed resources to restore our financial system, while providing critical transparency and accountability for taxpayers. While I was pleased to support the economic stimulus packages, they only provided a partial solution to fixing our economy's problems. We cannot stop now. Although we have already taken unprecedented efforts to stimulate and revive our economy, there is more work ahead. While hard-working families struggle to make ends meet, we owe it to them to continue to invest in their futures. I am pleased that this budget resolution includes my proposal to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote American manufacturing. Congress needs to take bold, decisive action to revitalize our domestic manufacturing sector. The U.S. has lost more than 4.1 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001 and over 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Michigan since January 2001. It is important that we revitalize and maintain a strong manufacturing base in the U.S. The manufacturing industry faces pressure from international corporations that are strongly supported by their respective governments; our own government needs to lend similar support to keep American manufacturing companies competitive in the global marketplace. The deficit-neutral reserve fund included in this budget lays the groundwork for legislation to address important initiatives to boost American manufacturing. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to stimulate the manufacturing sector in a meaningful way, and make a wise investment in the long-term growth, health, and stability of the manufacturing industry. The budget wisely includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate legislation that would provide investments in clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, leaving the details of the legislation to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. The threat of climate change is real and its impacts could be catastrophic if we do not act quickly. Clean energy and advanced technologies hold the promise for making real progress on reducing harmful greenhouse gases. While swift action is needed to confront the daunting challenges of global climate change, I oppose misusing the budget reconciliation process in the consideration of climate legislation. That legislation would influence every sector of the U.S. economy and could have far- reaching impacts across the globe. For this reason, I supported an amendment offered by Senator Johanns that would prohibit the use of reconciliation for climate legislation. I voted in support of the Johanns amendment to reaffirm my opposition to an extremely truncated process for climate legislation, which would make a deliberative approach impossible. Taking action on climate change legislation to protect public health, the economy, and natural security should be done in a thoughtful way and not rushed through Congress. I was pleased to join Senator Dorgan in proposing an amendment to provide an increase of $10 million for organ donation activities at the Health Resources Services Administration. This modest amendment is aimed at fulfilling the promise of the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act of 2004, to increase the number of organ donations. Currently, over 100,000 individuals are on the organ transplant waiting list, and more than 83,000 of those are in need of a kidney transplant. On average, patients wait 4 years before receiving a kidney transplant. Medicare spends about $55,000 per patient per year for dialysis. This means that every kidney donation has the potential to save Medicare as much as $220,000. Unfortunately, nearly 6,000 people die every year while waiting for a transplant. By doing more to educate people about donation and developing programs to encourage donation, we can take steps to reduce that number. Mr. President, this budget will continue the job of getting our great Nation back on track, and it deserves to pass.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I had the intent, when we got to executive session, of asking unanimous consent that Calendar item No. 47, Ashton Carter's nomination, be agreed to by unanimous consent. There is a hold on this nomination. The two Senators who have that hold have indicated to me their reasons for it. One of those Senators--and I have talked to Senator Shelby; there is no objection to my identifying him this way-- has not had the opportunity that he seeks to talk to Mr. Carter. He has made a commitment that he will do so as quickly as he possibly can after the recess so we can hopefully get to this nomination very promptly. It is essential this be taken up. So in light of the assurance I have received from Senator Shelby particularly, and I have talked also to Senator Sessions about this matter, I am not going to make that unanimous consent request tonight.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 844

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, earlier this month, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence released a report, ``Exporting Gun Violence,'' that documents how Mexican drug gangs are exploiting weak U.S. gun laws and corrupt gun sellers in the U.S. to amass arsenals of high powered guns. These guns have been used to kill thousands in Mexico and pose an increasingly grave security threat to both Mexico and the United States. Mexican law enforcement officials are increasingly being outgunned by drug gangs bearing military-style assault weapons, .50 caliber sniper rifles and other high powered weapons that originate from the United States. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, more than 7,770 guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico were traced back to gun dealers in the U.S. during 2008, up from 3,300 in 2007. The ATF has warned that an ``iron river of guns is streaming across the border at such a pace that some are being recovered in Mexico within days after their purchase in the U.S.'' According to the U.S. Department of State's latest International Narcotics Control Strategy report, ``U.S.-purchased or stolen firearms account for an estimated 95 percent of Mexico's drug related killings.'' Unlike Mexico's tougher gun laws, unlicensed sellers in the U.S. are allowed to sell guns without a background check, civilians are permitted to purchase military-style assault weapons, and there are no limits on the quantity of guns that can be sold at any given time. In the U.S., a trafficker can purchase as many guns they want from an unlicensed seller, no questions asked. On March 17, 2009, both ADM James Stavridis, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, and GEN Gene Renaurt, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, which I chaired, that the large flow of guns into Mexico and Central America from the U.S. is having a destabilizing impact in those countries. Many believe this destabilization could pose a significant national security threat to the U.S. According to the report, Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora has stated that, before the assault weapons ban in the U.S. was allowed to expire, only 21 percent of the weapons seized from traffickers were assault rifles, while today, it is more than half. President Obama has called for a comprehensive approach to the growing level of violence in Mexico. However, unless existing gun laws are strengthened, drug cartels and criminals in Mexico and the United States will continue to build their arsenals. We must act to close the gun show loophole, reinstate the assault weapons ban and enact other commonsense gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, with Senators Snowe, Stabenow, Collins and Schumer, I introduce The National Lighthouse Stewardship Act. This legislation creates a three-year competitive grant program at the Department of the Interior that will help to pay for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic lighthouses in Michigan and across the country. The grants will help nonprofit organizations, which serve as caretakers for these historic landmarks, to help them preserve and rehabilitate the historic lighthouses and keep them accessible to the public. This legislation complements a bill that was enacted in October 2000, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act, which I joined Sen. Frank Murkowski in offering. With the Coast Guard getting out of the lighthouse business, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act helped facilitate the process of transferring historic lighthouses from the government to non-profit historical organizations who would take over the responsibility for their care. It established an expedited process through the Government Services Agency to help ease lighthouse transfers by helping to cut through the bureaucratic red tape. As a result of the law, 46 lighthouses to date--9 in Michigan--have been transferred to custodians who will preserve them and keep them accessible to the public. Many of these lighthouse structures are in need of significant repair and rehabilitation, which is now the responsibility of their nonprofit custodians. Unfortunately, after obtaining custody of the lighthouses, many of the nonprofit organizations have struggled to raise the funds to adequately restore and maintain the lighthouses. To address this problem our legislation establishes a pilot program that would enable state and nonprofit groups to apply for competitive grants to help with restoration and maintenance efforts. This pilot program would authorize the secretary to distribute $20 million a year for 3 years. Funding for Lighthouse restoration is important to Michigan and to the Nation's historic preservation efforts. There are approximately 740 lighthouses in 31 coastal states. Michigan alone has over 120 lighthouses, more than any other State. They draw thousands of visitors to Michigan and other States each year and create jobs throughout our States. Michigan's and the Nation's lighthouses are national treasures that beautify our shorelines. These historic lighthouses are part of our Nation's rich maritime heritage. The grants are needed to help nonprofit organizations, which serve as caretakers for the historic landmarks, to maintain the beauty of the lighthouses and keep them accessible to the public. My office worked closely with lighthouse preservation groups in drafting this legislation. The Michigan Lighthouse Fund in my home state was invaluable in providing information on the needs of our Nation's lighthouses. This week in Washington, the American Lighthouse Coordinating Committee is meeting to coincide with the introduction of this act. These funds are desperately needed by these groups who work tirelessly to preserve our Nation's maritime heritage. This funding would help ensure our lighthouses remain cultural beacons for generations to come. America's lighthouses are national treasures that we cannot let deteriorate to the point beyond repair. I hope my colleagues will support the swift enactment of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, with Senators Snowe, Stabenow, Collins and Schumer, I introduce The National Lighthouse Stewardship Act. This legislation creates a three-year competitive grant program at the Department of the Interior that will help to pay for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic lighthouses in Michigan and across the country. The grants will help nonprofit organizations, which serve as caretakers for these historic landmarks, to help them preserve and rehabilitate the historic lighthouses and keep them accessible to the public. This legislation complements a bill that was enacted in October 2000, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act, which I joined Sen. Frank Murkowski in offering. With the Coast Guard getting out of the lighthouse business, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act helped facilitate the process of transferring historic lighthouses from the government to non-profit historical organizations who would take over the responsibility for their care. It established an expedited process through the Government Services Agency to help ease lighthouse transfers by helping to cut through the bureaucratic red tape. As a result of the law, 46 lighthouses to date--9 in Michigan--have been transferred to custodians who will preserve them and keep them accessible to the public. Many of these lighthouse structures are in need of significant repair and rehabilitation, which is now the responsibility of their nonprofit custodians. Unfortunately, after obtaining custody of the lighthouses, many of the nonprofit organizations have struggled to raise the funds to adequately restore and maintain the lighthouses. To address this problem our legislation establishes a pilot program that would enable state and nonprofit groups to apply for competitive grants to help with restoration and maintenance efforts. This pilot program would authorize the secretary to distribute $20 million a year for 3 years. Funding for Lighthouse restoration is important to Michigan and to the Nation's historic preservation efforts. There are approximately 740 lighthouses in 31 coastal states. Michigan alone has over 120 lighthouses, more than any other State. They draw thousands of visitors to Michigan and other States each year and create jobs throughout our States. Michigan's and the Nation's lighthouses are national treasures that beautify our shorelines. These historic lighthouses are part of our Nation's rich maritime heritage. The grants are needed to help nonprofit organizations, which serve as caretakers for the historic landmarks, to maintain the beauty of the lighthouses and keep them accessible to the public. My office worked closely with lighthouse preservation groups in drafting this legislation. The Michigan Lighthouse Fund in my home state was invaluable in providing information on the needs of our Nation's lighthouses. This week in Washington, the American Lighthouse Coordinating Committee is meeting to coincide with the introduction of this act. These funds are desperately needed by these groups who work tirelessly to preserve our Nation's maritime heritage. This funding would help ensure our lighthouses remain cultural beacons for generations to come. America's lighthouses are national treasures that we cannot let deteriorate to the point beyond repair. I hope my colleagues will support the swift enactment of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Collins and I submitted Senate Resolution 84, urging the Government of Canada to end the senseless and inhumane slaughter of seals off the east coast of Canada. To reiterate, on March 18, 2009, just weeks before its hunting season was scheduled to begin, Russia announced that it would ban the hunting and killing of baby seals. Youri Trutnev, Russia's Minister of Natural Resources, who was quoted in the New York Times last week, graphically depicted the shameful practice, saying: ``The bloody sight of the hunting of seals, the slaughter of these defenseless animals, which you cannot even call a real hunt, is banned in our country, just as well as in most developed countries.'' In addition, the Internal Markets and Consumer Protection Committee, IMCO, of the European Parliament approved a prohibition on trade in seal products in the European Union. This measure may now be considered by the full European Parliament in the coming months. Yet, in Canada, the largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals in the world continues. According to the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, over one million seals have been killed over the past 4 years. In Canada, seal pups as young as 12 days old can legally be killed. The vast majority of seals killed in these hunts are between 12 days and 12 weeks of age. Canada has officially opened another seal hunting season, paving the way for hundreds of thousands of baby seals to be killed for their fur in the coming weeks, when the harp seal hunt begins in earnest. I am pleased to have been joined by Senator Collins in submitting this resolution that urges the Government of Canada to end this senseless and inhumane slaughter. The U.S. Government has opposed this senseless slaughter, as noted in the January 19, 2005, letter from the U.S. Department of State, in response to a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to President Bush, urging him to raise this issue during his November 30, 2004, visit with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The letter reads, in part, as follows: ``The United States has made known to the Government of Canada its objections and the objections of concerned American legislators and citizens to the Canadian commercial seal hunt on numerous occasions over recent years. The United States has also opposed Canada's efforts within the Arctic Council to promote trade in sealskins and other marine mammal products.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the New York Times article of March 19, 2009, entitled ``Russia to Ban Hunting Baby Seals'' be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on March 18th, 2009, just weeks before its hunting season was scheduled to begin, Russia announced that it would ban the hunting and killing of baby seals. Youri Trutnev, Russia's Minister of Natural Resources, who was quoted in the New York Times last week, graphically depicted the shameful practice, saying: ``The bloody sight of the hunting of seals, the slaughter of these defenseless animals, which you cannot even call a real hunt, is banned in our country, just as well as in most developed countries.'' In addition, the Internal Markets and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) of the European Parliament approved a prohibition on trade in seal products in the European Union. This measure may now be considered by the full European Parliament in the coming months. Yet, in Canada, the largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals in the world continues. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), over one million seals have been killed over the past four years. In Canada, seal pups as young as 12 days old can legally be killed. The vast majority of seals killed in these hunts are between 12 days and 12 weeks of age. Canada has officially opened another seal hunting season, paving the way for hundreds of thousands of baby seals to be killed for their fur in the coming weeks, when the harp seal hunt begins in earnest. So today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Collins in submitting a resolution that urges the Government of Canada to end this senseless and inhumane slaughter. The U.S. Government has opposed this senseless slaughter, as noted in the January 19, 2005, letter from the U.S. Department of State, in response to a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to President Bush, urging him to raise this issue during his November 30, 2004, visit with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that support material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today's vote will mark the second time in 2 months the Senate has passed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. On January 15, the Senate passed a similar bill, which encompasses over 150 bills related to our Nation's natural, historic, and recreational resources. While I am pleased the Senate will again pass this legislation, I am disappointed this widely supported bill has required nearly 2 weeks of Senate floor time during a time of severe economic crisis. The omnibus public land bill includes four provisions I authored that will directly benefit Michigan by preserving precious natural resources and improving our parks and trails. First, the bill would authorize the Federal Government to purchase land from willing sellers for the North Country National Scenic Trail, the nation's longest hiking trail, 1,000 miles of which traverse through Michigan. This trail also runs through New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York, with a total length of 4,650 miles. For the majority of the other national scenic and historic trails, the Federal Government has land acquisition authority, but for no good reason this authority has not been available for the North Country Trail. Willing sellers, in many cases public-spirited citizens, should have the right to sell easements or even portions of their land to the Federal Government should they choose to do so and if it is in the national interest. In addition to important trail linkages, with willing seller authority, sections of the current trail could be moved from roads where hikers and other trail users are unsafe. I have been working on this willing seller legislation for nearly 10 years, and I am pleased that it is going to be approved by the Senate again today. Second, the omnibus public lands bill also includes legislation I sponsored last Congress to improve the Keweenaw National Historical Park, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Established in 1992, this unique park, with nearly 20 independently operated heritage sites, preserves and interprets the incredible story of copper mining and production in Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula that powered the Industrial Revolution. This legislation would enable the park to better carry out its statutory mission to preserve and bring to life the vibrant history of Michigan's ``copper country.'' Specifically, the legislation would change the onerous matching requirement for federal funds from a 4:1 ratio to a 1:1 ratio, which is typical for most other Park System units that require a non-federal funding match. The legislation would also increase the authorized level of funds to be appropriated for the park to enable the preservation, restoration, and interpretation of the numerous historical properties within the park boundaries. Finally, the legislation would eliminate an overly restrictive prohibition on the Department of the Interior from acquiring certain lands. Making these changes would improve the visitors' experience, preserve important historic resources, and help with economic revitalization of the Keweenaw Peninsula. Third, the bill provides important protections for about 16 percent of the land--or 12,000 acres--within the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula along the south shore of majestic Lake Superior. This wilderness legislation, which I introduced during the last Congress, provides natural resource protection while also ensuring that recreational opportunities and access are maintained. The wilderness designation was proposed by the Park Service after 5 years of careful planning and extensive public consultation. As a result of that open process, the final wilderness designation was changed from the initial proposal to respond to many of the concerns expressed by citizens. For example, the access roads to the lakes and campground are not included in the wilderness designation, so vehicles would still have access to this popular recreation area. Also, motor boats would still be able to access the Lake Superior shoreline, as the wilderness area does not include the Lake Superior surface water. In addition, boats using electric motors would still be allowed on Little Beaver and Beaver Lakes within the wilderness area. Since 1981, the Beaver Basin area has been managed as a backcountry and wilderness area, and this wilderness designation would ensure that the valuable habitat and pristine natural features of the region remain the treasure and peaceful sanctuary they are today. Finally, the omnibus lands legislation contains a bill that I sponsored in the Senate last year as a companion to Representative John Dingell's legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would designate land on which the battles of the River Raisin were fought, during the War of 1812, as a unit of the National Park System. This land, in Monroe County and Wayne County, MI, includes sites related to a significant set of battles in an area that was once considered part of the ``Northwest,'' a key strategic front in the War of 1812. By designating this land as a unit of the National Park System, the public will have an opportunity to learn about these battlefield sites. While horrific actions took place at the River Raisin, these events prompted a rallying cry that became a turning point in the War of 1812, which is often called America's ``Second War of Independence.'' I look forward to this legislation becoming law in time for the national celebration that will take place on the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. I am hopeful the House will also pass this legislation and the President will sign it into law so that we can wrap up one of the major pieces of unfinished business from the last Congress, which will benefit Michigan and the Nation by improving the preservation of and access to important natural, historic, and recreational resources.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, much has already been made of the recent action by AIG to distribute $165 million in bonuses for some of the very employees who contributed to the company's near collapse, the loss to our Treasury of tens of billions of dollars, and the severe damage to our economy. I joined with 43 colleagues yesterday in signing a letter, which our Presiding Officer was instrumental in writing, to the chief executive officer of AIG to express our outrage that this kind of money could go out the door, when the only reason the company survives today is the $170 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars that has been pumped into AIG over the past 6 months. I recognize that my disgust with this situation is far from unique. I wish to briefly discuss the appalling double standard revealed by the treatment of hundreds of thousands of honest autoworkers who are victims of the current financial crisis, compared to the treatment of a few hundred overpaid financial executives whose poor judgment and greed helped cause AIG's and our Nation's financial crisis. Right now, in large part because of the mortgage fraud, sleazy lending practices, outrageous financial engineering, and inadequate regulatory oversight that caused the financial crisis, we are in a deep recession. The recession means people aren't buying cars, and many who want to buy a car cannot get a loan because credit is so tight. No one foresaw those circumstances back in 2007, when the UAW last negotiated a labor contract for this country's autoworkers. That 4-year contract was supposed to last through 2011. When the bottom fell out of the economy, the future of the big three auto companies was called into question. The auto industry came to the Federal Government for help, and we offered assistance in the form of bridge loans, with the understanding that all the stakeholders would have to sacrifice to make this a fair deal for taxpayers. The autoworkers' response was not: We signed a 4-year contract and we are not changing a word. They could have taken that position, but they didn't. Instead, the workers renegotiated their contract. They agreed to significant reductions in their pay and benefits. They are doing what they can to help their company survive and help get our Nation out of this economic ditch. Contrast those autoworkers with the AIG executives. When the economy began tanking, AIG's stock nosedived, its assets plummeted in value, and the company lost its AAA credit rating. Due to hundreds of billions of dollars in commitments that AIG had issued, called credit default swaps, but which they failed to support with reserves, AIG's executives came hat in hand to the Government. The Government responded with billions of dollars in aid, not to protect AIG but to safeguard the U.S. economy from the threat posed by an AIG collapse. AIG's executives, including the financial products division that helped bring AIG down, were saved from bankruptcy. To recovery from AIG's financial fiasco and repay the Government loans, it should have been clear that everybody at AIG would have to make sacrifices to sustain the company and rebuild the U.S. economy. Unlike the autoworkers, however, AIG's executives didn't step to the plate. The 400 or so AIG employees at the Financial Products division signed employment contracts in the spring of 2008 that promised millions of dollars in bonuses and retention payments. When AIG attempted to renegotiate those employment contracts, the Financial Products executives refused. They demanded their millions, and AIG complied at the same time the company is borrowing tens of billions of dollars from American taxpayers. This week, according to the information of the New York attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, 73 AIG executives received so-called retention bonuses of $1 million or more. That is 73 millionaires out of the AIG fiasco that is taking billions of taxpayer dollars to fix. Eleven of those millionaires took the money and ran--they don't even work at AIG anymore. Wall Street has been out of control for years now, with high-risk financial concoctions and with excessive compensation that is too often unrelated to performance or shareholder value. But the contrast between assembly line workers in the auto industry giving up their bonuses and benefits to keep the big three in business, while executives who drove AIG over a cliff thumb their noses at the very taxpayers bailing them out, is simply too much to go unnoticed. The greed and chutzpah shown by these executives is reprehensible-- unacceptable to me, unacceptable to my constituents and unacceptable to this body and to every American who believes, as I do, that our Nation perseveres through hard times by working toward our common interests and making shared sacrifice. American taxpayers are pouring billions into AIG, even as millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Many more have made sacrifices similar to the autoworkers to help their employers and their families survive. AIG employees need to be clear: Without the U.S. Government, there would be no AIG, and they would have no job and no salary, let alone a bonus--let alone a $1 million bonus. In these exceedingly difficult times, AIG executives should follow the example set by the American autoworkers and renegotiate their employment contracts and accept compensation that doesn't shock and offend the American taxpayers who are keeping their company and this economy afloat. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote today to confirm Ronald Kirk to be U.S. Trade Representative. Although I have had serious concerns about our trade policies in the past, I am hopeful this administration will deal differently with trade. I am reassured by some of the things that Mr. Kirk said at his confirmation hearing. For instance, Mr. Kirk said he will put an emphasis on workers and the environment, something that his predecessors failed to do. He also has acknowledged that the pending U.S.-South Korea trade deal negotiated by the Bush administration ``. . . just simply isn't fair.'' This acknowledgement is important because the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement as currently written is harmful to the U.S. auto industry and its workers and should not be pursued in its present form. When it comes to automotive trade between the United States and Korea, the numbers speak for themselves. While Americans buy more than 770,000 Korean vehicles each year, fewer than 6,300 American autos are sold in Korea. Despite two bilateral memoranda of understanding in 1995 and 1998, Korea continues to use ever-changing standards to restrict auto imports. There is nothing in the pending agreement that guarantees Korea will open its market to U.S. automobiles even though it commits the U.S. to further opening its already open market to Korean vehicles. We should open our auto market further only after U.S. autos have gained measurable access to the Korean market but that is not how the agreement is currently written. At his confirmation hearing Mr. Kirk agreed the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement wasn't fair and said, ``if we don't get that right we'll be prepared to step away from that.'' He also said, ``I do not come to this job with `deal fever.' We will not do trade deals just for the sake of doing deals.'' I am pleased to hear these remarks because frankly some of the trade agreements the U.S. has entered into have not been in the best interests of the United States. The North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, is a good example. NAFTA contained a number of unfair provisions that are discriminatory to Michigan workers and companies. For example, it restricted U.S.-made auto parts from entering Mexico for a decade and American used car exports for 25 years. Furthermore, the U.S. maintained small but stable trade deficits with Canada and Mexico in the 1980s and early 1990s. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, the U.S. developed large and rapidly growing deficits with Canada and Mexico. Since jobs are created by exports but displaced by imports, job losses occurred. The Economic Policy Institute found that total U.S. job displacement from NAFTA over 12 years was 1 million jobs. Our trade policy should focus on opening markets in nations such as China, Japan, the European Union, and South Korea, where the most egregious trade barriers block the sale of U.S. goods and services and where we have the potential to export a larger quantity of goods and services. Mr. Kirk has promised to pry open foreign markets and enforce existing trade rules. I support his confirmation in the hope that he will. I have not been satisfied with America's trade policy over the past 30 years. I believe in free trade, but I believe that with free trade we must have fair trade. The U.S. market is the most open in the world, but our policy has failed to insist that foreign markets be equally open to American products. We sorely need a new and just approach to trade. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, with my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill, the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. This bill tackles a longstanding homeland security problem involving inadequate State incorporation practices that leave this country unnecessarily vulnerable to wrongdoers, hinders law enforcement, and damages the international stature of the United States. The problem is straightforward. Each year, our States allow persons to form nearly 2 million corporations and limited liability companies in this country without knowing, or even asking, who the beneficial owners are behind those corporations. Right now, a person forming a U.S. corporation or limited liability company, LLC, provides less information to the State than is required to open a bank account or obtain a driver's license. Instead, States routinely permit persons to form corporations and LLCs under State laws without disclosing the names of any of the people who will control or benefit from them. It is a fact that criminals are exploiting this weakness in our State incorporation practices. They are forming new U.S. corporations and LLCs, and using these entities to commit crimes ranging from drug trafficking, money laundering, tax evasion, financial fraud, and corruption. Law enforcement authorities investigating these crimes have complained loudly for years about the lack of beneficial ownership information. Last year, for example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury sent a letter to the States stating: ``the lack of transparency with respect to the individuals who control privately held for-profit legal entities created in the United States continues to represent a substantial vulnerability in the U.S. anti-money laundering/counter terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regime. . . . [T]he use of U.S. companies to mask the identity of criminals presents an ongoing and substantial problem . . . for U.S. and global law enforcement authorities.'' Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, wrote the following: In countless investigations, where the criminal targets utilize shell corporations, the lack of law enforcement's ability to gain access to true beneficial ownership information slows, confuses or impedes the efforts by investigators to follow criminal proceeds. This is the case in financial fraud, terrorist financing and money laundering investigations. . . . It is imperative that States maintain beneficial ownership information while the company is active and to have a set time frame for preserving those records. . . . Shell companies can be sold and resold to several beneficial owners in the course of a year or less. . . . By maintaining records not only of the initial beneficial ownership but of the subsequent beneficial owners, States will provide law enforcement the tools necessary to clearly identify the individuals who utilized the company at any given period of time. These types of complaints by U.S. law enforcement, their pleas for assistance, and their warnings about the dangers of anonymous U.S. corporations operating here and abroad are catalogued in a stack of reports and hearing testimony from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and others. To add insult to injury, our law enforcement officials have too often had to stand silent when asked by their counterparts in other countries for information about who owns a U.S. corporation committing crimes in their jurisdictions. The reality is that the United States can't answer those requests, because we don't have the information. Our bill would cure the problem by requiring State incorporation forms to include a request for the names of a corporation's beneficial owners. States would not be required to verify the information, but civil or criminal penalties would apply to persons who submitted false information. If law enforcement issued a subpoena or summons to obtain the ownership information, States would then supply the data contained on its forms. This bill has received the support of numerous law enforcement associations, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the National Narcotic Officers' Associations Coalition, the United States Marshals Service Association, and the Association of Former ATF Agents. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, FLEOA, for example, which represents more than 26,000 Federal law enforcement officers, states that ``the unfortunate lax attitude demonstrated by certain states has enabled large criminal enterprises to exploit those state's flawed filing systems.'' FLEOA goes on: We regard corporate ownership in the same manner as we do vehicle ownership. Requiring the driver of a vehicle to have a registration and insurance card is not a violation of their privacy. This information does not need to be published in a Yellow Pages, but it should be available to law enforcement officers who make legally authorized requests pursuant to official investigations. The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, NAAUSA, which represents more than 1,500 Federal prosecutors, urges Congress to take legislative action to remedy inadequate State incorporation practices. NAAUSA states: [M]indful of the ease with which criminals establish `front organizations' to assist in money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion and other misconduct, it is shocking and unacceptable that many State laws permit the creation of corporations without asking for the identity of the corporation's beneficial owners. Your legislation will guard against that from happening, and no longer permit criminals to exploit the lack of transparency in the registration of corporations. Our bill was also endorsed by President Obama during the last Congress when he was a member of the U.S. Senate and served as an original cosponsor of the predecessor bill, S. 2956. In 2006, the leading international anti-money laundering body in the world, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering--known as FATF--issued a report criticizing the United States for its failure to comply with a FATF standard requiring countries to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed under their laws. This standard is one of 40 FATF standards that this country has publicly committed itself to implementing as part of its efforts to promote strong anti-money laundering laws around the world. FATF gave the United States 2 years, until July 2008, to make progress toward coming into compliance with the FATF standard on beneficial ownership information. That deadline passed long ago, and we have yet to make any real progress. Enacting the bill we are introducing today would bring the United States into compliance with the FATF standard by requiring the States to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations formed under their laws. It would ensure that the United States met its international commitment to comply with FATF anti-money laundering standards. The bill being introduced today is also the product of years of work by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. As long ago as 2000, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, at my request, conducted an investigation and released a report entitled, ``Suspicious Banking Activities: Possible Money Laundering by U.S. Corporations Formed for Russian Entities.'' This report revealed that one person was able to set up more than 2,000 Delaware shell corporations and, without disclosing the identity of the beneficial owners, open U.S. bank accounts for those corporations, which then collectively moved about $1.4 billion through the accounts. It is one of the earliest government reports to give some sense of the law enforcement problems caused by U.S. corporations with unknown owners. It sounded the alarm years ago but to little avail. In April 2006, in response to a Subcommittee request, GAO released a second report entitled, ``Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available,'' which reviewed the corporate formation laws in all 50 States. GAO disclosed that the vast majority of the States do not collect any information at all on the beneficial owners of the corporations and LLCs formed under their laws. The report also found that many States have established automated procedures that allow a person to form a new corporation or LLC within the State within 24 hours of filing an online application without any prior review of that application by a State official. In exchange for a substantial fee, at least two States will form a corporation or LLC within one hour of a request. After examining these State incorporation practices, the GAO report described the problems that the lack of beneficial ownership information has caused for a range of law enforcement investigations. In November 2006, our subcommittee held a hearing further exploring this issue. At that hearing, representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, DOJ, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and the Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, testified that the failure of States to collect adequate information on the beneficial owners of the legal entities they form has impeded Federal efforts to investigate and prosecute criminal acts such as terrorism, money laundering, securities fraud, and tax evasion. At the hearing, DOJ testified: We had allegations of corrupt foreign officials using these [U.S.] shell accounts to launder money, but were unable--due to lack of identifying information in the corporate records-- to fully investigate this area. The IRS testified: Within our own borders, the laws of some states regarding the formation of legal entities have significant transparency gaps which may even rival the secrecy afforded in the most attractive tax havens. FinCEN identified 768 incidents of suspicious international wire transfer activity involving U.S. shell companies. In addition, in a list of the ``Dirty Dozen'' tax scams in 2007, the IRS highlighted shell companies with unknown owners as number four on the list, as follows: 4. Disguised Corporate Ownership: Domestic shell corporations and other entities are being formed and operated in certain states for the purpose of disguising the ownership of the business or financial activity. Once formed, these anonymous entities can be, and are being, used to facilitate underreporting of income, non-filing of tax returns, listed transactions, money laundering, financial crimes and possibly terrorist financing. The IRS is working with state authorities to identify these entities and to bring their owners into compliance. That is not all. Dozens of Internet websites advertising corporate formation services highlight the fact that some of our States allow corporations to be formed under their laws without asking for the identity of the beneficial owners. These Web sites explicitly point to anonymous ownership as a reason to incorporate within the United States, and often list certain States alongside notorious offshore jurisdictions as preferred locations for the formation of new corporations, essentially providing an open invitation for wrongdoers to form entities within the United States. One Web site, for example, set up by an international incorporation firm, advocates setting up companies in Delaware by saying: ``DELAWARE--An Offshore Tax Haven for Non U.S. Residents.'' It cites as one of Delaware's advantages that: ``Owners' names are not disclosed to the state.'' Another Web site, from a U.K. firm called ``formacompanyoffshore.com,'' lists the advantages to incorporating in Nevada. Those advantages include: ``No I.R.S. Information Sharing Agreement'' and ``Stockholders are not on Public Record allowing complete anonymity.'' Despite this type of advertising, years of law enforcement complaints, and mounting evidence of abuse, many of our States are reluctant to admit there is a problem with establishing U.S. corporations and LLCs with unknown owners. Too many of our States are eager to explain how quick and easy it is to set up corporations within their borders, without acknowledging that those same quick and easy procedures enable wrongdoers to utilize U.S. corporations in a variety of crimes and tax dodges both here and abroad. Since 2006, the subcommittee has worked with the States to encourage them to recognize the homeland security problem they have created and to come up with their own solution. After the subcommittee's hearing on this issue, for example, the National Association of Secretaries of State, NASS, convened a 2007 task force to examine state incorporation practices. At the request of NASS and several States, I delayed introducing legislation while they worked on a proposal to require the collection of beneficial ownership information. My subcommittee staff participated in multiple conferences, telephone calls, and meetings; suggested key principles; and provided comments to the task force. In July 2007, the NASS task force issued a proposal. Rather than cure the problem, however, the proposal was full of deficiencies, leading the Treasury Department to state in a letter that the NASS proposal ``falls short'' and ``does not fully address the problem of legal entities masking the identity of criminals.'' Among other shortcomings, the NASS proposal does not require States to obtain the names of the natural individuals who would be the beneficial owners of a U.S. corporation or LLC. Instead, it would allow States to obtain a list of a company's ``owners of record'' who can be, and often are, offshore corporations or trusts. The NASS proposal also doesn't require the States themselves to maintain the beneficial ownership information, or to supply it to law enforcement upon receipt of a subpoena or summons. The proposal also fails to require the beneficial ownership information to be updated over time. These and other flaws in the proposal have been identified by the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, me, and others, but NASS has given no indication that the flaws will be corrected. It is deeply disappointing that the States, despite the passage of more than 1 year, were unable to devise an effective proposal. Part of the difficulty is that the States have a wide range of practices, differ on the extent to which they rely on incorporation fees as a major source of revenue, and differ on the extent to which they attract non-U.S. persons as incorporators. In addition, the States are competing against each other to attract persons who want to set up U.S. corporations, and that competition creates pressure for each individual State to favor procedures that allow quick and easy incorporations. It is a classic case of competition causing a race to the bottom, making it difficult for any one State to do the right thing and request the names of beneficial owners. That is why we are introducing Federal legislation today. Federal legislation is needed to level the playing field among the States, set minimum standards for obtaining beneficial ownership information, put an end to the practice of States forming millions of legal entities each year without knowing who is behind them, and bring the United States into compliance with its international commitments. The bill's provisions would require the States to obtain a list of the beneficial owners of each corporation or LLC formed under their laws, to maintain this information for 5 years after the corporation is terminated, and to provide the information to law enforcement upon receipt of a subpoena or summons. If enacted, this bill would ensure, for the first time, that law enforcement seeking beneficial ownership information from a State about one of its corporations or LLCs would not be turned away empty-handed. The bill would also require corporations and LLCs to update their beneficial ownership information in an annual filing with the State of incorporation. If a State did not require an annual filing, the information would have to be updated each time the beneficial ownership changed. In the special case of U.S. corporations formed by non-U.S. persons, the bill would go farther. Following the lead of the Patriot Act which imposed additional due diligence requirements on certain financial accounts opened by non-U.S. persons, our bill would require additional due diligence for corporations beneficially owned by non-U.S. persons. This added due diligence would have to be performed--not by the States--but by the persons seeking to establish the corporations. These incorporators would have to file with the State a written certification from a corporate formation agent residing within the State attesting to the fact that the agent had verified the identity of the non-U.S. beneficial owners of the corporation by obtaining their names, addresses, and passport photographs. The formation agent would be required to retain this information for a specified period of time and produce it upon request. The bill would not require the States to verify the ownership information provided to them by a formation agent, corporation, LLC, or other person filing an incorporation application. Instead, the bill would establish Federal civil and criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly provided a State with false beneficial ownership information or intentionally failed to provide the State with the information requested. The bill would also exempt certain corporations from the disclosure obligation. For example, it would exempt all publicly traded corporations and the entities they form, since these corporations are already overseen by the Security and Exchange Commission. It would also allow the States, with the written concurrence of the Homeland Security Secretary and the U.S. Attorney General, to identify certain corporations, either individually or as a class, which would not have to list their beneficial owners, if requiring such ownership information would not serve the public interest or assist law enforcement in their investigations. These exemptions are expected to be narrowly drawn and used sparingly, but are intended to provide the States and Federal law enforcement added flexibility to fine-tune the disclosure obligation and focus it where it is most needed to stop crime, tax evasion, and other wrongdoing. Another area of flexibility in the bill involves privacy issues. The bill deliberately does not take a position on the issue of whether the States should make the beneficial ownership information they receive available to the public. Instead, the bill leaves it entirely up to the States to decide whether and under what circumstances to make beneficial ownership information available to the public. The bill explicitly permits the States to place restrictions on providing beneficial ownership information to persons other than government officials. The bill focuses instead on ensuring that law enforcement and Congress, provided they are equipped with a subpoena or summons, are given ready access to the beneficial ownership information collected by the States. To ensure that the States have the funds needed to meet the new beneficial ownership information requirements, the bill makes it clear that States can use their DHS state grant funds for this purpose. Every State is guaranteed a minimum amount of DHS grant funds every year and may receive funds substantially above that minimum. Every State will be able to use all or a portion of these funds to modify their incorporation practices to meet the requirements in the act. The bill also authorizes DHS to use appropriated funds to carry out its responsibilities under the act. These provisions will ensure that the States have the funds needed for the modest compliance costs involved with amending their incorporation forms to request the names of beneficial owners. It is common for bills establishing Federal standards to seek to ensure State action by making some Federal funding dependent upon a State's meeting the specified standards. This bill, however, states explicitly that nothing in the bill authorizes DHS to withhold funds from a State for failing to modify its incorporation practices to meet the beneficial ownership information requirements in the act. Instead, the bill simply calls for a GAO report in 2013 to identify which States, if any, have failed to strengthen their incorporation practices as required by the act. After getting this status report, a future Congress can decide what steps to take, including whether to reduce any DHS funding going to the noncompliant States. Finally, the bill would require the U.S. Department of the Treasury to issue a rule requiring formation agents to establish anti-money laundering programs to ensure they are not forming U.S. corporations or LLCs for criminals or other wrongdoers. GAO would also be asked to conduct a study of existing State formation procedures for partnerships and trusts. We have worked hard to craft a bill that would address, in a fair and reasonable way, the homeland security problem created by States allowing the formation of millions of U.S. corporations and LLCs with unknown owners. What the bill comes down to is a simple requirement that States change their incorporation applications to add a question requesting the names and addresses of the prospective beneficial owners. That is not too much to ask to protect this country and the international community from wrongdoers seeking to misuse U.S. corporations and to help law enforcement stop those wrongdoers. For those who say that, if the United States tightens its incorporation rules, new companies will be formed elsewhere, it is appropriate to ask exactly where they will go. Every country in the European Union is already required to get beneficial information for the corporations formed under their laws. Most offshore jurisdictions already request this information as well, including the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Jersey, and the Island of Man. Our States should be asking for the same ownership information, but they don't, and there is no indication that they will any time in the near future, unless required to do so. I wish Federal legislation weren't necessary. I wish the States could solve this homeland security problem on their own, but ongoing competitive pressures make it unlikely that the States will reach agreement. It has been more than 2 years since our 2006 hearing with no real progress to show for it, despite repeated pleas from law enforcement. Federal legislation is necessary to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to wrongdoing by U.S. corporations with unknown owners, to protect interstate and international commerce from criminals misusing U.S. corporations, to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate suspect U.S. corporations, to level the playing field among the States, and to bring the United States into compliance with its international anti-money laundering obligations. There is also an issue of consistency. For years, I have been fighting offshore corporate secrecy laws and practices that enable wrongdoers to secretly control offshore corporations involved in money laundering, tax evasion, and other misconduct. I have pointed out on more than one occasion that corporations were not created to hide ownership, but to shield owners from personal liability for corporate acts. Unfortunately, today, the corporate form has too often been corrupted into serving those wishing to conceal their identities and commit crimes or dodge taxes without alerting authorities. It is past time to stop this misuse of the corporate form. But if we want to stop inappropriate corporate secrecy offshore, we need to stop it here at home as well. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and put an end to incorporation practices that promote corporate secrecy and render the United States and other countries vulnerable to abuse by U.S. corporations with unknown owners. As I mentioned earlier, in the 110th Congress, then-Senator Obama was an original cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with President Obama to ensure this homeland security bill is enacted into law. I thank my cosponsor, Senator Grassley, who has been such a leader in this effort for so long, as he has in so many other good government initiatives. I also thank Senator McCaskill for her cosponsorship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress will hopefully with this vote finally complete action on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. This bill addresses some of the Nation's critical needs. It also addresses some of Michigan's special needs such as protecting the Great Lakes, improving our transportation infrastructure, and supporting our manufacturers and small businesses. In addition, it supplies our local law enforcement with tools they need to protect our citizens and provides support for our communities to help our most vulnerable citizens during this economic crisis. This bill includes funding for a number of important Great Lakes programs. With the funding in this bill, the Thunder Bay Marine Sanctuary and Under Water Preserve will be able to complete the exhibits in the new visitor's facility. The bill provides a $2 million increase for the Great Lakes Legacy program which has made a positive impact on the Lakes by removing contaminated sediment. This bill also provides funds to the Corps of Engineers to complete construction of the permanent dispersal barrier in order to stop Asian carp and other invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. I am pleased that funding of over $50 million that I requested for dredging and other operation and maintenance needs for Michigan's ports and harbors was included in this bill. The Great Lakes navigational system faces a backlog of 16 million cubic yards of dredging needs, which has had very real negative impacts on Great Lakes shipping. Several freighters have gotten stuck in Great Lakes channels, ships have had to carry reduced loads, and some shipments have simply ceased altogether. While an increase in some water levels is helping somewhat in this regard, the Great Lakes navigational system has an accumulation of maintenance needs. The additional funding that was included will help address this backlog, and I will keep working to increase appropriations and the budget so this important maritime highway, so that one of the lowest cost ways to transport supplies to industry and products to consumers, is not impeded. The bill also provides $17 million to the Corps of Engineers for the Soo Lock replacement project, which would serve as a backup for the current Poe Lock. Total annual shipping on the Great Lakes exceeds 180 million tons, over half of which goes through the Soo Locks. Funding for the lock is critical to ensuring that this system remains operational. This bill provides a boost in funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure which will put people to work while improving mobility, safety and competitiveness in Michigan and around the country. The bill provides $15.39 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $865 million over the fiscal year 2008 levels. Included in that total is $9.04 billion for Federal Aviation Administration operations that would be used to improve safety and air traffic organization, and to increase the hiring and training of air traffic controllers and aviation safety inspectors. The bill provides $40.7 billion in highway funding, $483.9 million above fiscal year 2008 levels. It also provides $1.45 billion for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, a $128.1 million increase over the fiscal year 2008 level. It also provides $10.1 billion for Federal Transit Administration, $773 million over fiscal year 2008 levels. This bill also includes a number of programs to help technology companies and manufacturers in Michigan and throughout the country, including funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and the Technology Innovation Program, TIP. The bill includes $110 million for the MEP program. President Bush proposed to eliminate the program in his fiscal year 2009 budget. MEP is the only Federal program dedicated to providing technical support and services to small- and medium-sized manufacturers. MEP is a nationwide network of proven resources that enables manufacturers to compete globally, supports greater supply chain integration, and provides access to information, training and technologies that improve efficiency, productivity, and profitability. In fiscal year 2007 alone, based on services provided in fiscal year 2006, MEP helped to: create or retain over 52,500 jobs, generate more than $6.765 billion in sales, and stimulate more than $1.65 billion in economic growth. MEP is needed now more than ever as our small and medium manufacturers struggle to survive in this serious recession. The bill includes $65 million for the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, the successor to the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. While slightly less than the fiscal year 2008 level it is still significant given the fact that President Bush proposed zeroing out the program in his fiscal year 2009 budget. TIP is a cost-sharing program that promotes the development of new, innovative products that are made and developed in the United States, helping American companies compete against their foreign competitors and contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy. During this terrible recession the TIP program is an important way to stimulate job growth and high technology R&D in the United States. I am pleased that this bill continues the current ban on using Federal funds for future Federal contracts to so-called ``inverted'' U.S. companies that, to avoid certain U.S. taxes, have reincorporated in an offshore tax haven country but left their offices and production service facilities here in the U.S. We should not further reward inversion by granting them Federal contracts. It is unfair to the U.S. companies left to operate on an uneven playing field, and it is unfair to the rest of our taxpayers who pay their fair share. The fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill includes an increase in funding over fiscal year 2008 in a number of important areas at the Department of Energy. In particular, this bill includes $273 million for advanced vehicle technologies, an increase of $58 million over fiscal year 2008, with additional funding included for research and development on advanced battery technologies. The bill also includes $217 million for biomass and biorefinery systems, an increase of $17 million over fiscal year 2008, which should allow for continued and increased support of innovative technologies for production of ethanol and biofuels produced from cellulosic materials. The omnibus also includes modest increases for both solar and wind energy research and development that will contribute to ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of commercialization of these technologies. I am also pleased that this bill includes additional new funding for loan guarantees for advanced innovative technologies, specifically providing up to $18.5 billion for loan guarantees for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and manufacturing that will be available for important projects such as biofuels production and advanced battery manufacturing. This bill includes a significant increase in several areas of funding for science and technology. Within the Department of Energy, this bill includes an increase of $754 million for the Office of Science, which will increase federal support for basic research and support the goals and programs of the America Competes Act, which called for a doubling of the U.S. investment in science over 10 years. It also includes increases in science programs at the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both of which have a significant role to play in development of advanced technologies that will keep the U.S. competitive in the global market. This legislation provides funding for state and local law enforcement and crime prevention. It includes much needed funding for the Community Organized Policing Services, COPS, program, which provides our police departments with the technology and training tools needed to prevent and detect crime and for the Office of Justice Programs that provides funding for Byrne justice assistance grants, juvenile justice programs, and drug courts. It also provides $415 million to the Office on Violence Against Women so that we can better prevent and prosecute violent crimes against women. Finally, I am pleased that the legislation includes $185 million for interoperable radio systems. During this economic crisis, it is especially important that this bill includes vital funding for our Nation's nutrition, housing and economic development programs that will provide much-needed help to our communities. This bill includes increased funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Program, SNAP, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, which help provide nutritious food to many in this country who are in need. It also includes increased funding for public and affordable housing programs that provide housing to low-income Americans and $1.7 billion, which is $91 million above the 2008 funding level, for homeless assistance grants which provide rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons and families to help break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and families into permanent housing. In addition, this bill provides $3.9 billion, $34 million above the 2008 funding level, for the community development block grant, CDBG, program which will fund community and economic development projects to revitalize our communities. This bill includes funding I requested for the redevelopment of part of the old Tiger Stadium and its ball field. This funding will help the surrounding community move forward on a plan to preserve part of the old Tiger Stadium and its ball field as a premier baseball field for youth leagues and to redevelop part of the stadium structure and adjacent land to be used for retail shops and restaurants and other commercial and entertainment attractions. This funding will not only help preserve this part of Detroit and baseball history, but also bring much needed jobs and economic activity into this neighborhood and to the city of Detroit. I am glad that we have finally completed the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. While it is unfortunate that we once again had to consider nine different bills packaged into a single omnibus spending measure, I am very pleased that this bill includes funding for many important national programs and projects that will especially benefit Michigan. It is my hope that we will be able to complete a timely, open and transparent appropriations process in the coming year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are many reasons to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, but a principal reason is that passage would not reduce Federal spending by one dollar. The amendment would prohibit spending on specific programs mentioned in the statement of managers but not included in the statutory bill language. But the money would be appropriated and available to be spent as the executive branch sees fit. So voting for this amendment thinking it will reduce spending would be a vote cast on a false assumption. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memo to me by the Congressional Research Service. Part of that memo reads that prohibiting the use of funds for `` projects referred to in the McCain amendment number 593 would not have the effect of reducing the spending provided in the measure.'' This is also true for the amendment which had been offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senate amendment No. 610. According to Congressional Research Service, ``[t]he funds that might have been set aside for these projects could not be used to fund the projects, but would be available for other activities funded within the pertinent account.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress has a right to override a regulation, and in fact Congress should use this authority more often. Exercising the right of legislative review of regulations is a key responsibility of Congress. Should Congress deem a regulation deficient, members should exercise their legislative authority to change or override that rule. The Omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 includes a provision in section 429 effectively doing that by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to withdraw or reissue two rules of the Bush administration related to the Endangered Species Act. One rule, relating to Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered Species Act, weakens the requirement that Federal agencies consult with either the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, the agencies that have expertise in matters related to endangered and threatened species. Giving Federal agencies the permission to bypass the consultation with these expert agencies harms the purpose of the Endangered Species Act. The other rule includes a special provision that would prohibit the use of the Endangered Species Act from activities that occur outside of the current range of the species. I agree that it is better that greenhouse gas emissions should be controlled through a national economy-wide scheme rather than through the Endangered Species Act. However, the language isn't mandatory and I also understand that even if the Secretary of the Interior rescinds this rule, an interim final rule protecting the polar bear would still be in effect and would also include the reasonable limitations provided in section 4(d) of this rule. Finally, we are in a unique procedural situation where the passage of any amendment will push us to a year-long continuing resolution instead of appropriations. That outcome needs to be avoided.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 608