Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan. On Saturday, September 9, 2000, Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan will celebrate 80 years of service to the residents of Southeastern Michigan. Since June 21, 1920, Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan has been assisting individuals with disabilities and their families. During this time, Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan has remained committed to treating every person it serves with equality, dignity and independence. Guided by these principles, Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan seeks to provide creative solutions that assist the thousands of families it provides with therapy and support services each year. Nationwide, Easter Seals serves 1 million people annually. For eight decades, Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan has served children and adults with disabilities. While September 9, 2000, commemorates these efforts, it is also a day of high hopes and expectations. September 9, 2000, marks the official unveiling of the new Easter Seals facility in Southfield, Michigan. I am confident that this facility will enable Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan to complete their mission for another 80 years and beyond. Mr. President, I know my colleagues join me in offering congratulations and best wishes for continuing success to the Easter Seals of Southeastern Michigan, as they celebrate 80 years of service to disabled individuals and their families.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is taking up, as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, the Semipostal Act, an amendment I sponsored with Senators Feinstein and Hutchison. My amendment is very similar to the McHugh bill that we sent to the President yesterday, which establishes the authority to issue semipostals in the U.S. Postal Service. However, it is different in that it requires the Postal Service to recoup the full costs associated with the stamp. This bill will ensure that the Postal Service recovers its costs before funds are made available to the agency to carry out the designated program. We do not want the Postal Service using its own budget to fund contributions to causes designated by semipostals. Only the true net profit from the sale of the semipostals will be made available to the appropriate agency. This bill also gives the Congress the power to reject a stamp proposal chosen by the Postal Service, if for example, the stamp subject is deemed inappropriate. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are giving the authority to issue semipostal stamps to the Postal Service, which is where these decisions belong. Amendment No. 4029 (Purpose: To grant the United States Postal Service the authority to issue semipostal stamps, and for other purposes)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week we received some positive news from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. According to newly released statistics, firearm deaths among young people decreased in 1998. The new report shows that firearm deaths among children and adolescents under 20 dropped 10 percent--from 4,223 in 1997 to 3,792 in 1998. Perhaps even more significant, in 1998, deaths among young people were down 35 percent since 1994, when firearms led to the deaths of 5,833 young people. It is no coincidence that firearm casualties have been reduced by 35 percent since 1994, the year the Brady Law went in to effect. The Brady Law, which requires licensed firearms sellers to conduct criminal background checks on prospective gun purchasers, has successfully kept guns out of the hands of hundreds of thousands of criminals and youths. Although we can rejoice that fewer youths are subject to the danger of guns, we should still be dismayed that 10 of our young people (on average) die from guns every day. 10 children and adolescents as well as 74 adult Americans suffered gun-related deaths daily in 1998, and that is far too many. Congress must do more to protect our children and loved ones from these gun tragedies. We can start by strengthening the Brady Law by closing the gun show loophole. That loophole allows perpetrators of violent crimes to buy guns from non-licensed or private sellers, who are not required to conduct criminal background checks. This loophole undermines the successes of Brady by arming those who would otherwise not be permitted to purchase firearms. In May of 1999, the Senate passed legislation to close this loophole by extending criminal background checks to guns sold at gun shows and pawn shops, but opponents of this common sense provision have kept it from becoming law. It is disheartening to know that Congress has not yet passed sensible gun laws--laws designed to protect American lives. Without addressing this issue, America will continue to lose 10 young people a day to guns, and that is 10 too many.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for more than 60 years, the Social Security program has been one of the most successful governmental initiatives this country has ever witnessed. August 14, 2000 marks the 65th anniversary of the Social Security Act, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935. This historic event in 1935 changed the face of America by providing protections for retired workers and for those who face loss of income due to disability or death of the family breadwinner. We must look to the future to ensure a strong Social Security program for every individual in America. During the time of the Great Depression, jobs were scarce and many were unable to compete for new employment. President Roosevelt recognized that a change was needed, he called for reform and the Social Security Act was born. Social Security has changed remarkably over the past six decades. Under the 1935 law, Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivor benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added. Thus, we have seen how Social Security has grown to meet the needs of not only retirees, but also their families. For many Americans, Social Security has become a crucial component of their financial well-being. In fact, an estimated 42% of the elderly are kept out of poverty because of their Social Security checks. Today more than 44 million people receive retirement, survivor, and disability benefits through the Social Security program, 1.6 million in Michigan. Social Security has had an enormous effect on the lives of millions of working Americans and their families. As we celebrate this historic event, we remember what America was and how Americans have shaped their country into the prosperous nation that it is today. Since 1935 Social Security has served the American people well and will continue to do so into the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are problems with each of the major tax bills. I may spend a moment on each of those problems. On the estate tax bill, it has problems. There is an alternative which is a better alternative, which would help more people. For those relatively few people who do pay an estate tax, the alternative Democratic plan would provide immediate relief--100 percent relief to people who have less than $8 million per couple for family farms and small businesses; total and immediate relief for those people in the alternative plan. The bill which has been adopted has a major problem in that it favors upper income individuals, the wealthiest among us, and most of its benefits go to those people rather than the people who need this the most, which are individuals and married couples who have estates that might be, in the case of a family farm or small business, $8 million or less. But there is a bigger problem, whether we are talking about repeal of the estate tax or the marriage penalty tax. And there-- regarding the marriage penalty, we have an alternative as well which would benefit a larger number of low and moderate income people with a greater benefit instead of a group of people who are at the upper end of the income level. The major problem I have with these tax bills is that when you put them all together, what it means is that we would not be able to apply this surplus to reduction of the national debt. I am out there, as all of us are, in our home States. I talk to people and ask people in all the meetings I have: What do you primarily want us to spend the surplus on? Do you want tax cuts--putting aside for the moment whether they benefit upper income folks or benefit working families, put aside that issue for the moment; that is a major issue--do you basically want us to take this $1.8 trillion and pay down the national debt? Or do you want that to go in tax cuts? Overwhelmingly, repeatedly, I hear back from people, they want us to pay down the national debt. Whether we are talking about younger people, middle-age people, older people, they all come to the same conclusion: No. 1, we can't be sure the surplus will be that large so don't spend it all on anything, be it tax cuts or other programs. Spend most of it on protecting the future economy of the United States. Spend most of it on that $6 trillion debt that has been rung up--to reduce the amount of that debt, to try to assure that the economy, which we now have humming, will stay humming; that an economy which we finally have at a point where we don't add to the national debt with annual deficits each year, that is healthy in terms of interest rates and job creation and in low inflation, that that economy will be there for us next year, next decade, next generation. I believe that is what the American people overwhelmingly want us to do. We can argue, and we should, and we can debate, and we should, which estate tax proposal is a better estate tax proposal. That is a legitimate debate. We obviously have an alternative to the one that was adopted which is targeted to the people who need it the most, people who have farms and small businesses and estates worth up to $8 million, people who are still paying an estate tax even though it might mean in some cases that they could lose that family farm. Our alternative provides total relief to those families and immediate relief to those families, unlike the one that was passed by the Republican majority which gives most of its cuts to the people who need it the least, people who are in the higher brackets, higher asset levels, and phases it in and then only does it partially. We should, and we do, debate those issues: Which alternative plans on the estate tax or on the marriage penalty tax provide the fairest kind of tax relief to the people who need it the most. But the underlying issue, which is one I hope we will keep in mind, is whether or not we want to commit this projected surplus of almost $2 trillion in 10 years to any of these proposals to the extent that we have. Be it tax cuts or be it efforts to improve education or health care or what have you, it is my hope and belief that the greatest contribution we can make to our children and to their children is to protect this economy, to try to keep an economy, which is now doing so well, healthy in future years, as it has been in the past few years. That means we need to protect that surplus, not spend it; not use it for tax cuts on the assumption that there is going to be $1.8 trillion or $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, because there is too much uncertainty in that, because our people sense--and correctly--that we do not know for certain that that budget surplus will in fact be there. There has been recent public opinion polling which seems to me illuminating on this subject. When people are asked whether or not they want to protect Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt, or whether or not they think passing a tax cut is the better way to go, 75 percent believe protecting Social Security and paying down the debt is the most important priority we have right now. Only 23 percent favor passing tax cuts as an alternative. When asked the question of whether or not the trillion-dollar tax cut package that was passed last year, without a penny for Medicare, and whether or not the tax cuts that are being added this year to the same amount, still without a penny for Medicare, is the better way to go, 63 percent say no, 32 percent say yes. So the public senses that with the surplus we have, the proportion we project, the best thing we can do to protect our economy and the best thing we can do with that projected surplus is in fact to pay down the debt, protect Medicare, and to target our efforts on some of the needs we have as a country, rather than to provide for the kind of tax cuts that we have seen the Republicans enact. What I have said about the estate tax is also true relative to the marriage penalty bill. We have two alternatives--the one that passed, but we also have an alternative that did not pass, which provides targeted, comprehensive relief and is fiscally more responsible because it leaves more for debt reduction and, therefore, overall is a better value for the American taxpayer. The alternative completely eliminates the penalty in all of its forms, not just in a few, as the marriage tax penalty legislation we passed does. The Democratic alternative eliminates it for couples earning up to $100,000, which is 80 percent of all married couples, and it costs $29 billion per year when fully phased in. The plan that was adopted, the Republican plan, confers 40 percent of its benefits on taxpayers who currently suffer a penalty. In other words, only 40 percent of the benefits of the Republican plan go to taxpayers who currently actually suffer a penalty. The rest of the people who get a benefit in the Republican plan either don't suffer a penalty--indeed they received a bonus when they got married--or are left untouched one way or another. And the Republican plan addresses only 3 of the 65 instances of the penalty in the Tax Code, whereas the Democratic alternative plan addresses every place in the Tax Code where the marriage penalty exists. And the Republican plan costs $40 billion when fully phased in as compared to $29 billion per year for the alternative Democratic plan. So, again, it seems to me it is a pretty clear choice that we have: Do we want a plan that is targeted to people who earn under $100,000, that confers benefits on people who are truly penalized when they are married, in terms of the taxes they pay, and a plan that does so at a cost significantly less than in the Republican plan that was adopted? Or do we want to adopt the more costly plan, most of the benefits of which go to people who are in the upper income brackets, and then do not address totally the problem that exists for those people who do suffer a tax penalty upon marriage? The same thing is true with the overall tax cut that has been proposed. We have basically two alternatives that have been set forth to the American people, not yet put in the legislative form, but which have been proposed by Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. According to the Citizens For Tax Justice, the distribution of benefits of the Bush plan basically provides that 10 percent of the taxpayers get 60 percent--the upper 10 percent, the top 10 percent of taxpayers, get 60 percent of the benefits; the bottom 60 percent of the taxpayers get 12 percent of the benefits. That is the tax plan that has been proposed by Governor Bush. It would reduce revenues by $460 billion over the first 5 fiscal years, and by $1.3 trillion over 9 fiscal years, plus an additional $265 billion in associated interest costs. That is an extraordinarily expensive plan. We haven't seen that yet in legislative form, and I am not sure we will. Nonetheless, the American people are again going to be presented with very different approaches as to how we should use the surplus. Some people say, ``Senator, that is our money you are talking about; what is wrong with the tax cut?'' My answer is that it is our money, your money. It is also our economy. It is also our Social Security program. It is also our Medicare program. It is also our education program. It is our health care program. So the argument that this money belongs to the people of the United States is clearly true. I think it is undeniable. I can't imagine anybody suggesting that anything in the Treasury is anything but the property of the people of the United States. But the other half of that, which is too often left out, is that the economy, which is now healthy, belongs to the people of the United States. They have made it possible, through their work, for us to have a strong economy. Keeping that economy healthy is also the job of this Congress, as well as the job of the people of the United States. The Social Security system, which has made such a difference for so many that the poverty rate among seniors is now 5 percent, compared to the poverty rate among children, which is 20 percent, mainly because of the existence of Social Security--that program belongs to the people of the United States. Protecting that program is also our responsibility. So to say that, yes, the surplus belongs to the people is true. But the Medicare program, Social Security program, health care program, education program also belong to the people of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill includes a provision to establish a special postage stamp called the semipostal, intended to raise funds for programs to reduce domestic violence. I am a very strong supporter of programs to reduce domestic violence--I believe Congress should fully fund those programs--but I do not agree that another semipostal issue should be mandated by the Congress. Semipostals are stamps that are sold with a surcharge on top of the regular first-class postage rate, with the extra revenue earmarked for a designated cause. Those causes are invariably causes which I think most, if not all, support. They are very appealing causes that come to Congress and ask to require the Postal Service to issue a stamp that has an amount for first-class postage more than the regular 33 cents amount, with the difference going to their cause. The one and only time that we ever did that was for an extraordinarily worthy cause--breast cancer research. The question now is whether we are going to continue down that road and, as a Congress, mandate the Postal Service to issue those stamps for a whole bunch of causes that are competing with each other for us to mandate the Postal Service to issue such a stamp. Section 414 of this bill says: In order to afford the public a convenient way to contribute to funding for domestic violence programs, the Postal Service shall establish a special rate of postage for first-class mail under this section. It then goes on to describe what that rate shall be. It says in part of this section that: It is the sense of the Congress that nothing in this section should directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total funds received by the Department of Justice or any other agency of the Government, or any component or program thereof below the level that would otherwise have been received but for the enactment of this section. I am not sure how this can possibly be enforced. But that is just one of the problems, not the basic problem, with this language. As I indicated, the first and only example in American history of a semipostal stamp being issued was the breast cancer research stamp which required the Postal Service to turn over extra revenue, less administrative costs, to the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense for its breast cancer research programs. That stamp broke tradition in Congress, not just because it was the first semipostal in our Nation's history but also because it was the first time that Congress mandated the issuance of any stamp in 40 years. I think our tradition of keeping Congress out of the stamp selection process has worked with respect to commemorative stamps, and I believe we should follow that with respect to semipostals as well. For the last 40 years, Congress has deferred to the Postal Service and to an advisory board which it has set up, nonpartisan, out of politics, objective. That Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee recommends subjects for the commemorative stamp program. That committee, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, was created more than four decades ago to take politics out of the stamp selection process. Committee members review thousands of stamp subjects each year and select only a small number that they believe will be educational and interesting to the public and meet the goals of the Postal Service. Although Congress advises that advisory committee on stamp subjects by making recommendations through letters that we send or through sense-of-Congress resolutions, until now, for the last 40 years, Congress has left the decisionmaking on stamp issuance up to the Postal Service. This is what the Postal Service says about the role of the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee: The U.S. Postal Service is proud of its role in portraying the American experience to a world audience through the issuance of postage stamps and postal stationery. Almost all subjects chosen to appear on U.S. stamps and postal stationery are suggested by the public. Each year, Americans submit proposals to the Postal Service on literally thousands of different topics. Every stamp suggestion is considered, regardless of who makes it or how it is presented. On behalf of the Postmaster General, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC) is tasked with evaluating the merits of all stamp proposals. Established in 1957, the Committee provides the Postal Service with a ``breadth of judgment and depth of experience in various areas that influence subject matter, character and beauty of postage stamps.'' The Committee's primary goal is to select subjects for recommendation to the Postmaster General that are both interesting and educational. In addition to Postal Service's extensive line of regular stamps, approximately 25 to 30 new subjects for commemorative stamps are recommended each year. Stamp selections are made with all postal customers in mind, not just stamp collectors. A good mix of subjects, both interesting and educational, is essential. Committee members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Postmaster General. The Committee is composed of 15 members whose backgrounds reflect a wide range of educational, artistic, historical and professional expertise. All share an interest in philately and the needs of the mailing public. The Committee itself employs no staff. The Postal Service's Stamp Development group handles Committee administrative matters, maintains Committee records and responds to as many as 50,000 letters received annually recommending stamp subjects and designs. The Committee meets four times yearly in Washington, D.C. At the meetings, the members review all proposals that have been received since the previous meeting. No in-person appeals by stamp proponents are permitted. The members also review and provide guidance on artwork and designs for stamp subjects that are scheduled to be issued. The criteria established by this independent group ensure that stamp subjects have stood the test of time, are consistent with public opinion and have broad national interest. Ideas for stamp subjects that meet the CSAC criteria may be addressed to the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, c/o Stamp Development, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 4474E, Washington, D.C. 20260-2437. Subjects should be submitted at least three years in advance of the proposed date of issue to allow sufficient time for consideration and for design and production, if the subject is approved. The Postal Service has no formal procedures for submitting stamp proposals. This allows everyone the same opportunity to suggest a new postage stamp. All proposals are reviewed by the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee regardless of how they are submitted, i.e., postal cards, letters or petitions. Afer a proposal is determined not to violate the criteria set by CSAC, research is done on the proposed stamp subject. Each new proposed subject is listed on the CSAC's agenda for its next meeting. The CSAC considers all new proposals and takes one of several actions: it may reject the new proposal, it may set it aside for consideration for future issue or it may request additional information and consider the subject at its next meeting. If set aside for consideration, the subject remains ``under consideration'' in a file maintained for the Committee. What is important about all that is that there are very clear procedures where every citizen of this country can make a recommendation to the committee which has certain basic criteria to determine the eligibility of subjects for commemoration on U.S. stamps. These criteria are set forth for the general public to see--12 major areas guide the selection. It is a general policy that U.S. postage stamps and stationery primarily will feature American or American- related subjects. No living person shall be honored by portrayal on U.S. postage. Commemorative stamps or postal stationery items honoring individuals usually will be issued on, or in conjunction with significant anniversaries of their birth, but no postal item will be issued sooner than ten years after the individual's death. The only exception to the ten-year rule is the issuance of stamps honoring deceased U.S. presidents. They may be honored with a memorial stamp on the first birth anniversary following death. Events of historical significance shall be considered for commemoration only on anniversaries in multiples of 50 years. Only events and themes of widespread national appeal and significance will be considered for commemoration. Events or themes of local or regional significance may be recognized by a philatelic or special postal cancellation, which may be arranged through the local postmaster. Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor fraternal, political, sectarian, or service/charitable organizations that exist primarily to solicit and/or distribute funds. Nor shall stamps be issued to honor commercial enterprises or products. These criteria--I have just read six of them; there are a total of 12--are set forth for the public to see and for everybody to have a fair chance, according to certain criteria set forth in advance to have a recommendation considered. The stamp advisory committee, however, does not issue semipostals. One of the questions we need to face as a Congress is whether or not, given the fact we now are beginning to authorize semipostage such as the breast cancer research, semipostal, it would not be better for us to authorize the advisory committee of the Postal Service to be performing this important function. The problem is that since the breast cancer research stamp has been authorized, we have had dozens of requests for a semipostal stamp. This is a list of some of the bills that have been introduced. These are just the bills that have been introduced for semipostal: AIDS research and education; diabetes research; Alzheimer's disease research; prostate cancer research; emergency food relief in the United States; organ and tissue donation awareness; World War II memorial; the American Battle Monuments Commission; domestic violence programs; vanishing wildlife protection programs; highway-rail grade crossing safety; domestic violence programs--a second bill; another bill on organ and tissue donation awareness; childhood literacy. There are not too many of us, I believe, who are about to vote against a stamp that could raise--could raise, I emphasize--some funds because the cost of these issues are supposed to be deducted from the receipts, but I do not believe there are too many of us who are in a position where we would want to vote against a stamp or anything else that could assist AIDS research, diabetes research, Alzheimer's disease, prostate cancer research, or organ and tissue donation. Many of us have devoted a great deal of our lives to those and other causes such as the World War II memorial and the National Battle Monuments Commission. When the breast cancer research stamp was approved, I voted against it. I was one of the few who did. That created for me, and for others who voted no, the prospect that somebody would then say I opposed funds for breast cancer research, which obviously I do not. In a split second, I would have voted to increase the appropriation for breast cancer research by the amount of money which might have been raised by this stamp so we could give to NIH an amount of money at least equal to what might be raised by such a stamp. Obviously, I am not opposed to additional funds. Indeed, the opposite is true. What does trouble me, however, is that we are now beginning a course which will politicize the issuance of stamps again in this country. We had taken politics out of it by the creation of an advisory committee. For 40 years this advisory committee, and this advisory committee alone, has decided and made the recommendation to the Postal Service what commemoratives will be issued. They have not issued any semipostals nor were any issued by this country until the breast cancer research stamp was approved. Now in this bill we have another good cause, money which would go to programs aimed at reducing domestic violence. There is no doubt about the validity of the cause. The problem is that we have no criteria, that we do this ad hoc, helter-skelter. We have already authorized one stamp, which I will get to in a moment, that relates to grade crossing safety. This is on the calendar, approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, not yet approved by the Senate. This is going to unleash a politicization process of the issuance of stamps which I do not believe will benefit this Nation. I think it will be incredibly difficult for the Postal Service, which does not want us to require the issuance of semipostals. They are still sorting through the breast cancer research stamp costs. We should reauthorize the breast cancer research stamp because we have already authorized the stamp and it has been printed, and unless we reauthorize it, then this program will run out. This is a very different issue from voting for an additional issue, and the next, and the next. I will spend a couple of minutes this afternoon talking about what happened with another semipostal stamp which was proposed in a bill and was approved by the committee. I did not vote for it in the Governmental Affairs Committee, not because I oppose its cause, but, again, for what this is going to unleash upon us in terms of politics--issuance of stamps and using the issuance of stamps to raise money for causes which will then be vying against each other. I do not think that is in anybody's interest. The one example on which I want to focus for a few moments is a proposal which has already been approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, and that is what is called the Look, Listen, and Live Stamp Act. That bill requires the Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp for an organization called Operation Lifesaver. Operation Lifesaver is a nonprofit organization which is dedicated to highway and rail safety through education. Operation Lifesaver seems to be a fine organization, but it is not the only organization which is committed to preventing railroad casualties. As a matter of fact, railway safety advocates are split on the issue of grade crossing safety and the best method to prevent rail-related injuries. Operation Lifesaver, for example, emphasizes safety through education, while other railway safety advocates promote safety by funding automatic lights and gates at railway crossings. After the Governmental Affairs Committee reported this stamp proposal, railroad safety organizations contacted my office to represent their disagreement with the ``look, listen, and live stamp'' primarily because of the emphasis that one organization, Operation Lifesaver, puts on education and education only. The president of a group called the Coalition for Safer Crossings wrote me the following letter: Dear Senator Levin: I personally find Operation Lifesaver spin on education appalling. Three and a half years ago, I lost a very dear and close friend of mine at an unprotected crossing in southwestern Illinois. Eric was nineteen. I fought to close the crossing where Eric was killed and since helped many families after the loss of a loved one through my organization, the Coalition for Safer Crossings. And now today, we are moving forward with other smaller organizations to form a national organization to combat certain types of education being put out by other groups and to help victims' families and help change the trend of escalating collisions. The National Railroad Safety Coalition is comprised of families and friends of victims of railroad car collisions, unlike Operation Lifesaver. Again, Operation Lifesaver is the group that is going to receive the net dollars that will be raised by the issuance of this ``look, listen, and live stamp.'' Then the head of this competing group says: I personally and professionally oppose this measure. If the United States Congress is truly concerned about this issue of railroad crossing safety and is dead set on making stamps, then you should make a railroad safety stamp not a Operation Lifesaver stamp. And rather than have the money go to their type of education, have it go towards the States funds for grade crossing upgrades in that State. A matching dollar scheme comes to mind from the State. He concludes: I am currently 23 years old. When I was in high school, I received the same driver safety training regarding grade crossings safety as my best friend Eric did. Eric is now gone. The funds from this proposed stamp would not have helped him. Now if this stamp would have been around prior to 1996 and funds were allocated to the State of Illinois for hardware and a set of automatic lights and gates were installed at this crossing in question I wouldn't be writing you this letter today. I hope you understand the difference. Mr. President, at the time that this stamp was approved in the Governmental Affairs Committee, I submitted minority views on this issue. In part, this is what I wrote just about a year ago this month: For over 40 years, the U.S. Postal Service has relied on the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to review and select stamp subjects that are interesting and educational. The committee chooses the subjects of U.S. stamps using as its criteria, 12 major guidelines, established about the time of the Postal Reorganization Act. [They] have guided the committee in its decisionmaking function for decades. The tenth criteria guiding [their] selection makes reference to semi-postal stamps, the type of stamp that the Postal Service would be required to issue if the Look, Listen, and Live Stamp Act were enacted. With respect to semi-postals, the guidelines state, ``Stamps or postal stationery items with added values, referred to as `semi- postals,' shall not be issued. Due to the vast majority of worthy fund-raising organizations in existence, it would be difficult to single out specific ones to receive such revenue. There is also a strong U.S. tradition of private fund-raising for charities, and the administrative costs involved in accounting for sales would tend to negate the revenues derived.'' This position was also reflected in a . . . letter from Postmaster General William Henderson. He has also cautioned and urged our committee not to mandate the issuance of specific semipostals. So I do not believe that we can and should be in the business of deciding to promote one worthy charity over another, one specific organization over another. This stamp, the one that is now on the calendar--not the one in this bill; the one on the calendar--for safety at railway crossings is, it seems to me, an example of a stamp that may not be workable, and yet the full Governmental Affairs Committee has reported this bill out. Then what are we to do? We are going to be presented with a number of proposals relative to semipostals. Many of our colleagues have introduced bills. The bill before us has such a provision. I believe the answer comes from Representative McHugh and Representative Fattah, who are the chairman and the ranking member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on the Postal Service. They put their views in a bill, H.R. 4437, which passed the House of Representatives on July 17. It gives the Postal Service the authority to issue semipostals. It requires the Postal Service to establish regulations, before issuing any stamp, relating to, first, which office within the Postal Service shall be responsible for making decisions with respect to semipostals; two, what criteria and procedures shall be applied in making those decisions; and, three, what limitations shall apply, such as whether more than one semipostal will be offered at any one time. The McHugh bill also requires the Postal Service to establish how the costs incurred by the Postal Service as a result of any semipostal are to be computed, recovered, and kept to a minimum. One thing we learned from the breast cancer semipostal is that the Postal Service did not establish an accurate accounting system for tracking the cost of semipostals. According to a recently released GAO report, ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp, Millions Raised for Research, But Better Cost Recovery Criteria Needed''--that is the title of the report--the Postal Service did not track all monetary or other resources used in developing and selling the breast cancer research stamp. They kept track of some costs but were not able to determine the full costs of developing and selling the stamp. Postal officials obviously should keep track of both revenues and their full costs so that the appropriate net can be determined for delivery to that particular cause. The McHugh bill is before this body. The McHugh bill, in addition to authorizing the issuance of semipostals by the stamp advisory committee, also reauthorizes the breast cancer research stamp. It does both things. I hope this body will take up this bill and adopt this kind of procedure in order to attempt to take this issue out of politics and not put us in a position where we have to vote between a stamp raising money for AIDS research or diabetes research or Alzheimer's research or prostate cancer research, organ and tissue donation research, the World War II Memorial, domestic violence, and on and on. I doubt very much that we would want to vote no to any of those. Yet we cannot possibly have all of them at once. The Postal Service cannot possibly handle the accounting, the delivery, the sale of all those stamps. They have urged us very strongly not to be authorizing and mandating the issuance of those stamps. So I hope that when the bill comes before us, which I hope will be any time, we will reauthorize the breast cancer research stamp. Again, even though I voted against it, for the reasons I have given here this afternoon, nonetheless I think, given the fact that the stamps have been printed and that effort is already underway, and the huge number of people who have already been involved in promoting the sale, and the women and men from around this country who have gone out of their way to use that stamp are in place--they have been operating; they have been very successful, very productive with millions of dollars that will be raised, the pluses of continuing to reauthorize that stamp, once it has been issued, and once that effort is underway, outweigh the negatives, which I have outlined this afternoon. At the same time, I hope that the rest of the McHugh bill will be adopted by us so that we can put into place criteria which will make it a lot easier for us to have a sensible system for the issuance of semipostals. Mr. President, on a matter that relates directly to this bill, because it is a Treasury bill, I want to just spend a few minutes talking about the issue of the budget surplus, and the response of the Congress to that budget surplus. I want to use, as my text, and then intersperse some comments into it, a memorandum that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, wrote on the effect of congressional legislative action on the budget surplus. This is what the OMB Director wrote: This memo is in response to your request that OMB assess the effect of legislative action on the budget surplus. Over the past six months, Congress has passed nine major tax cuts resulting in a cost of $712 billion over ten years. Draining this sum from the United States Treasury reduces the amount of debt reduction we can accomplish, thereby increasing debt service costs by $201 billion over ten years. Therefore, the Congressional tax cuts passed to date will draw a total of $913 billion from the projected surplus. In addition, the Congressional majority has stated clearly that its tax cuts to date represent only a ``down payment'' in a long series of tax cuts it intends to realize. While there has been little specificity about the size and nature of the entire program, the full range of action taken by the 106th Congress, both last year and this, provides an indication of the total impact of the Congressional tax cut proposals on the surplus. In the first session of the 106th Congress, the majority passed one large measure, which included a variety of tax cuts totaling $792 billion. Excluding certain individual tax cuts which passed this year as well as last year (such as elimination of the estate tax and the marriage penalty), the cost of tax cuts passed last year amounts to $737 billion, and the additional debt service amounts to $148 billion for a total of $885 billion. Jacob Lew goes on as follows: The bill-by-bill approach to tax cuts in the absence of an overall framework masks the full impact and risks of the cumulative cost. I will repeat that because that is the heart of the matter. The bill-by-bill approach to tax cuts in the absence of an overall framework masks the full impact and the risks of the cumulative cost. In the absence of more specific indications about the content and number of future tax cuts the congressional majority has stated it plans to produce, we have used the total costs associated with tax cuts from the 106th Congress as an illustration of Republican plans. If their plans remain consistent with the past activity, the full cost of this program would be: --tax cuts of $1.44 trillion --additional debt service of $349 billion --for a total of $1.796 trillion. The effect of such tax cuts would be to completely eliminate the projected non-Social Security/Medicare budget surplus at the end of ten years. Even by the more optimistic projections the entire surplus would be drained. The most recent CBO projections issued earlier this week estimate a ten-year non-Social Security/Medicare surplus of $1.8 trillion. OMB's recent projections estimate a ten-year non- Social Security/Medicare surplus of $1.5 trillion. In either case, because the costs of the tax cuts match or exceed the projected budget surplus, there would be no funds available for any of the nation's other pressing needs, including our proposals to establish a new voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit, pay an additional $150 billion in debt reduction to pay down the debt by 2012, expand health coverage to more families, provide targeted tax cuts that help America's working families with the cost of college education, long-term care, child care and other needs, or extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. Those are the options we are going to be faced with in the next few months, whether or not we want to take this projected surplus of either $1.5 trillion or $1.8 trillion--we are only talking about the non- Social Security, non-Medicare surplus--whether we want to take that surplus, which the CBO estimates is $1.8 trillion and the OMB estimates is $1.5 trillion, and use that almost exclusively or exclusively for the tax cuts which have been proposed, or whether we want to use a significant part of that surplus to pay down the national debt faster, to establish a new voluntary prescription drug benefit, to expand health coverage, to expand opportunity for college education, and to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. I want to put in the Record in a moment the list of the pending tax cuts in the 106th Congress which Jack Lew makes reference to, the $934 billion, approximately, in the 10-year cost. These are bills which have been passed by one body or another or one committee or another in one body: Marriage Penalty Conference Committee, $293 billion; Social Security tier 2 repeal, $117 billion; estate tax in the House $105 billion; the Patients' Bill of Rights in the House, $69 billion; the communications excise tax, $55 billion; the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, $7 billion; then the subtraction for provisions in multiple bills and so forth. Then you have to add the interest costs of these tax cuts. That comes out to be about $900 billion. I ask unanimous consent to print this list in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Missouri up to 7 minutes for a statement he wishes to make, and I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to do that without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to a remarkable person from my home state of Michigan, Senator Jackie Vaughn III. On July 30, Senator Vaughn, the Associate President Pro Tempore for the Michigan State Senate, will be honored for his tireless public service to Detroit and the entire state of Michigan. Senator Vaughn's history of public service is truly deserving of recognition. For the past twenty-two years this ``Man of Peace'' has represented the Fourth Senatorial District of Michigan with a sense of justice and concern for all members of society. He has drafted wide- ranging legislation that has, among other things, sought to expand voting rights, promote peace and provide educational opportunities for all citizens. Such a diverse array of interests and concerns should come as no surprise to those who know Jackie. Senator Vaughn is a renaissance man who has been educated at many of the world's finest institutions of higher learning. The recipient of a Fullbright Scholarship, Senator Vaughn has received the Oxon B. Litt from England's Oxford University, a Master's Degree from Oberlin College and a B.A. from Hillsdale College. In addition, has been awarded honorary doctorates from Highland Park College, Marygrove College, Shaw College and the Urban Bible Institute. Senator Vaughn has sought to pass his love of learning on to subsequent generations through his teaching at the University of Detroit, Wayne State University and Hartford Memorial Church where he has led the Contemporary Issues Sunday School Class for twenty years. Senator Vaughn can take pride in his long and honorable service in the Michigan State Senate. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Senator Jackie Vaughn for his commitment to Detroit, the State of Michigan and the entire Nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 which included an amendment I sponsored to outlaw the resale of military surplus armor piercing ammunition, including .50 caliber ammunition, to civilians. This amendment requires the Department of Defense to ensure that military surplus armor-piercing ammunition is not sold or transferred to anyone except foreign militaries or law enforcement or other government agencies. Armor piercing ammunition is extremely lethal and is powerful enough to pierce an armored limousine or helicopter. It has no legitimate civilian use. Last year, Congress approved legislation which instituted a one-year restriction on the civilian sale of military surplus armor piercing ammunition; the amendment approved by the Senate last week would put that temporary restriction into permanent law. Before the one-year restriction was enacted, under the Conventional Demilitarization Program, a contractor working with the Department of Defense was paid $1 per ton to take possession of its excess armor-piercing ammunition, which it was free to refurbish and resell to the general public. The Department of Defense should not be a party to making this extraordinarily destructive ammunition available to the general public. Once available on the market, this powerful ammunition is subject to virtually no restriction, making it easier for someone to purchase armor piercing ammunition capable of piercing an armored car, than it is to buy a handgun. These loose restrictions make armor piercing ammunition highly popular among terrorists, drug traffickers and violent criminals. An investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that armor piercing .50 caliber ammunition is ``among the most destructive and powerful ammunition available in the United States'' and the ``widespread availability'' of the bullets ``poses a threat to public safety.'' In the year ending in March, 1999, more than 113,000 rounds of military surplus armor piercing .50 caliber ammunition were sold in the United States. The amendment to prohibit the resale of military surplus armor piercing ammunition is a small but important step in keeping our streets safe.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I would hope that the Secretary of Agriculture would declare an emergency regarding bovine TB. Doing so would assist areas where this disease is present and prevent the further spread of bovine TB. Red River Trade Council

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. One agricultural emergency that currently affects my home state of Michigan, and which threatens livestock in the Upper Midwest is bovine tuberculosis (TB). Due to a host of factors, Michigan is the only state in the Union where bovine TB has actually been transferred from livestock into the wild. Most frequently, this disease has been transferred from cattle to members of the Cervid family, such as whitetail deer. Deer then are able to transfer TB to herds of cattle, wild animals or humans. As a result of this disease, neighboring states have restricted the entry of Michigan cattle, farmers have been required to test their cattle for this disease and some livestock producers have had to eradicate their herds. I would ask the Senator from Wisconsin, if he believes that the matter of bovine TB constitutes an emergency.

Mr. LEVIN. I would appreciate the Senate conferees giving full consideration to the House position on this matter.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which would assist apple growers who suffered losses from fire blight and other weather related and economic damage. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Collins, Schumer, Gorton, Murray, Snowe, Leahy, Jeffords, Moynihan, Durbin, Rockefeller, Robb, Abraham, and Lieberman. This spring, apple growers in Michigan suffered huge crop losses and damage due to several hail storms which caused thousands of acres of apple trees to be infected with fire blight. Fire blight is a bacterium that has destroyed thousands of acres of fruit trees in Michigan. Experts at Michigan State University anticipate that \1/4\ of all MI apple farmers have trees that are afflicted by fire blight. As a result of this weather related disaster, many of Michigan's best apple producers face diminished production this fall, and decreased revenues for many years to come. My amendment provides essential assistance for apple and potato producers that have suffered quantity losses due to fire blight or other weather related disasters. These hardships could not come at a worse time for our nation's apple farmers who, according to USDA, have lost nearly $1 billion over the past three years due to a variety of factors including diseases, such as fire blight. This legislation also includes assistance for apple and potato farmers who have incurred quality losses due to weather-related disasters. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act, which President Clinton signed into law, included some emergency assistance for our nation's farmers. However, much remains to be done to address the myriad of problems facing out nation's apple farmers. That is why with 13 cosponsors I have introduced amendment No. 3457 that would provide $100 million in assistance this year for quantitative losses of our nation's apple farmers. A second degree amendment that would provide $60 million for qualitative losses, suffered by apple and potato farmers, was attached to my amendment by Senators Abraham and Schumer. Articles from a number of Michigan papers show the plight of apple farmers, and mentions the need for direct assistance, in the form of this amendment, to our apple farmers. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies (S. 2536). Included in this bill is funding which will, among other things, assist our nation's farmers, aid rural development, preserve delicate ecosystems and provide food assistance to our nation's most needy individuals. I support these measures, but I also realize that there are urgent agricultural emergencies which cannot be covered by the scope of the annual appropriations process.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate S. 2536, the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I am concerned that this bill omits an appropriation included in the House version of this bill (H.R. 4461). H.R. 4461 appropriates $309,600 for the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) to fund research addressing Postharvest Handling and Mechanization to Minimize Damage for Fruits. This research is vital, not only for Michigan, but for all fruit producing states. This research has the potential to allow fruit growers to realize greater profits by better ensuring fruit quality. Given the significant potential of this program to assist fruit producers in my home state, I am troubled by its exclusion in S. 2536.

Mr. LEVIN. I am particularly grateful to Senator Susan Collins whose support has been essential. I am also pleased with the many bipartisan cosponsors who have supported this legislation. This amendment is similar to legislation which recently passed the other body as part of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Mr. LEVIN. We are always the No. 2 or No. 3 state in terms of apple production. Every year we vie with New York for who comes in second after the State of Washington. But our apple industry has suffered major devastation in southwestern Michigan. We have had the largest problem with fire blight in the history of our State. It is a true disaster. It seems to me some people just look at the whole and ignore the parts. They also have a responsibility of looking at the parts. Our part was a disaster which we addressed in the form of an amendment providing relief on June 19. Senator Collins and 12 bipartisan cosponsors joined this amendment. I thank them very much for their assistance. We cover potatoes as well as apples because there has been an honest to goodness disaster emergency amongst potato growers as well. I once again, thank the managers of this bill. I know how difficult this is. Those of us who represent States that had emergencies that were not reflected in the bill, as it came to the Senate, counted on the managers and our colleagues to do justice for our emergencies in the same way this bill, as it came to the Senate, addressed emergencies in other States. We are deeply grateful to the managers. We thank Senator Stevens and others who were able to work out this agreement so our true disaster could be taken care of.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank Senators Cochran and Kohl for staying with this issue for those of us who represent States with true disasters, true emergencies, that were not represented in the bill as it came to the Senate. We have had the worst outbreak of fire blight in our apple industry in the history of the State of Michigan. Our Governor has requested that Secretary of Agriculture Glickman grant a disaster designation for seven counties in Michigan that have been afflicted by fire blight. I ask unanimous consent that this request be printed in the Record along with two newspaper articles.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join with all of my colleagues today in praising the life and celebrating the life and grieving the loss of Paul Coverdell. He was a friend and someone whom I trusted. I think we all trust each other here because we are family. But I had a special fondness and a special trust for Paul Coverdell. He was a man of tremendous integrity, directness, and modesty. There are many instances over our time period together that come to mind. But one in particular is perhaps the most recent one. I had a matter that was of great personal concern to me. It was an issue where he and I differed philosophically but where I needed his help in order to get my position heard. He agreed it should be heard, even though he disagreed with it. I went to him and asked him whether or not he might assist me in that process, and he said, ``Carl, I don't agree with you on this issue, but this is a matter of great import for this country and your views clearly should be considered by the decisionmaker here. I am going to do everything I can to make sure that in fact those views are considered.'' That said a lot about this man and about this place. Although we disagreed on an issue, he believed that the principle of having both sides heard was more important than the specifics of the issue. His integrity was indisputable and undoubted. We came to rely on him in so many ways. His background made him particularly able to make a special contribution to this Senate. He had great skills as a legislative craftsman and tactician. He, of course, had a wonderful background in the Peace Corps, and there were so many other ways he was able to contribute as a very special force in the deliberations on this floor. Paul Coverdell rose to leadership in a very short period of time, which reflected the deep respect and regard that he had among his Republican colleagues. That special affection and regard was matched on this side of the aisle. The death of this very fine and gentle man is a terrible loss to the people of Georgia. I consider it to be a great loss to the people of Michigan and all of America, and a great personal loss to me as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 4 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) reauthorization bill (H.R. 2392) that will reauthorize the SBIR program for eight more years. An eight year reauthorization will allow participating agencies to continue to do long term planning for their research and development (R&D) needs. I'm especially pleased that this legislation includes my bill to establish a volunteer mentoring program. The SBIR program, originally established in 1982 and reauthorized and expanded in 1992, expires this year. This highly competitive program has a well-deserved reputation for success and has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. It improves upon what is already a successful program that gives small high technology companies access to federal research and development dollars and the federal government access to some of the world's best innovation. I am pleased the full Senate is considering this legislation today and I hope House consideration will swiftly follow so that contracting agencies can be assured funding will be available in this contract cycle. I am a long time supporter of the SBIR program. The SBIR program creates jobs, increases our capacity for technological innovation and boosts our international competitiveness. According to a recent GAO study, about 50 percent of all SBIR research is commercialized or receives additional research funding. That's a pretty good success rate. It's also a great example of federal agencies working together with small businesses to develop technologies to solve specific problems and fill government procurement needs in a cost effective way. The SBIR program is a highly successful program and we can make it even more successful by establishing an outreach and volunteer mentoring program to bring more high technology small businesses into the program and help them successfully compete for awards. Many states believe they can do better regarding the number of SBIR awards their small businesses win. Since the SBIR program is a highly competitive and merit-based program, I believe the best way to increase participation is through outreach and mentoring. The SBIR reauthorization bill before the Senate today creates programs to do both. The Federal and States Technology Partnership Program (FAST) included in this bill establishes an outreach program through a technology economic development program that aims to build more support for science and technology research in states. A natural complement to reaching out to new companies to tell them about the SBIR program is the establishment of a ``mentoring network'' to increase their odds for success in that program. Many SBIR company officials have benefitted from this R&D program, are committed to its success and have told me they want to give something back by way of mentoring small companies new to the SBIR program. Many attribute their SBIR contracts with federal agencies as the main reason they have been able to successfully commercialize their research, make a ``real'' product, and expand employment in their companies. Through my proposal, mentoring networks will be established to match volunteer mentors with new applicant high technology small businesses to help increase their chances for success in the SBIR program, and, ultimately, the commercialization of their research. A small business's failure to obtain a phase I or phase II SBIR award may have nothing to do with the capability of its technology but rather is often a result of a lack of understanding the government procurement process and procedures. Mentoring will address this concern by matching the new company with one that already knows the ropes of the SBIR program and federal procurement process. This is a cost effective program. Modeled after the successful SCORE program, the mentoring networks' volunteer mentors would be reimbursed only for their out-of-pocket expenses. Their time, energy and know-how would be donated free-of-charge. Specifically, the bill provides for the establishment of mentoring networks that are eligible for matching grants within the FAST program in each state. The mentoring network (an association, organization, coalition or other entity) will provide business advice and counseling and assist small business concerns that have been identified as good candidates for the SBIR program. Volunteer mentors are people associated with small businesses that have successfully competed one or more SBIR funding agreement and have agreed to guide small business concerns through all stages of the SBIR program process. The mentoring networks program also establishes an important publicly accessible national database housed at SBA to compile information on mentoring networks and volunteer mentors. This database will provide an important tool to increase small business' access to mentors. I urge SBA to devote its full attention to getting it up and running upon enactment of this legislation. H.R. 2392 also expands the collection, reporting and maintenance of information for an SBA database regarding SBIR awards. It fixes a problem identified by GAO by requiring a uniform definition of ``extramural R&D budget,'' the formula used by each participating agency to determine the level of funds dedicated to the SBIR program. It establishes a five year competitive matching grant pilot program administered by the SBA for an organization or consortia to perform outreach and technology economic development within states, including establishing or operating a mentoring network to provide advice and counseling to SBIR applicants. I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of this important high technology small business procurement program and the improvements to it that H.R. 2392 provides. Amendment No. 3944

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords and Senator Dorgan for this amendment. There is no reason why American consumers should not have access to lower-priced medicines, while assuring the safety of those medicines that are imported. I quote from an editorial from the Detroit News. This is an editorial department which is very outspokenly conservative, avowedly conservative in its editorial policy. It says: . . . Congress should remove the prohibition because the federal government ought not to restrict the purchasing options of Americans. It goes on to say: . . . using government coercion to prevent Americans from purchasing drugs from abroad is not the way to go. That is what this issue is all about. This is whether or not we are going to use the free market. This has nothing to do with setting prices. This has to do with using a free market to allow the reimportation of something manufactured in the United States after it has been certified by the FDA that it is safe to do so. It is incredibly galling as well as incredibly expensive for my constituents in Michigan to go across the border to Canada in order to buy drugs at about half the price of what they are charged for those same drugs in Michigan. Again, these are drugs manufactured in the United States and exported to Canada. All this amendment says is that it ought to be possible for our wholesalers and our pharmacists to import something back into the United States manufactured in the United States and having been approved by a process of the FDA to make sure that it is safe. We have done a survey in my home State. We have compared the prices of these drugs. They are quite extraordinary. We have many people who cannot afford these drugs. These are often lifesaving drugs, life- extending drugs. These are drugs which reduce pain, which make it possible for people to be more mobile than they otherwise would be. We looked at seven of these most popular drugs because there were three on which we could not make a comparison because they were over- the-counter drugs in Canada or otherwise unavailable to get prices, but seven of the most popular drugs. Premarin is an estrogen tablet taken by menopausal women. It costs $23 in Michigan, $10 in Ontario. Synthroid--this replaces a hormone which is normally produced by the thyroid gland--costs over $13 in Michigan, under $8 in Ontario. We could go through the next five drugs on this list, and I have done this already in the Record in previous remarks I made on the Senate floor. We cannot afford to be subsidizing the consumers in other countries. We ought to use the free market that we are all so proud of to allow the import of something which is, by the way, manufactured in the United States and, by the way, in some cases had previously received financial support from the taxpayers of the United States through either the Tax Code on research and development or, in some cases, direct grants from the National Institutes of Health to the scientists who developed these drugs. It is really an intolerable situation when we have people in our States who can't afford these critically important drugs and are simply prohibited from having a wholesaler or a pharmacist import that drug from another country. Since the amendment provides for safety through a process which has to be approved by the FDA, it seems to me this is a sensible thing to do. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable person from my home state of Michigan, Reverend Nick Hall Jr. On July 23, Rev. Hall will retire after 48 years of service to the Bethesda Baptist Church in Saginaw. Reverend Hall's history of pubic service is truly deserving of recognition. After serving his country in the Navy during World War II, he received his Bachelor of Theology from the Chicago Baptist Institute in 1950. He then moved to Saginaw, Michigan and organized the Bethesda Baptist Church in 1952, where he has ministered there for nearly five decades. In 1990, he furthered his studies in Theology by earning his Doctor of Divinity from Urban Bible College in Detroit. In addition to his career in the ministry, Rev. Hall has dedicated himself to civic leadership through his work with many community organizations. From civil rights activist to County Commissioner, he has won many hats in his long public career, but all of them have shown a true dedication to his community. For the last 48 years, Rev. Hall has served with integrity and compassion. Rev. Hall's departure from Bethesda Baptist Church will certainly mark a new chapter in his life. I can only hope it is as successful as this previous one. Though I am sure he will remain active in his many church and community activities, I hope that he will be able to spend more time with his wife, Marie, and their children and grandchildren. I am pleased to join his family, congregation, and friends in offering my thanks for all he has done. Mr. President, Reverend Nick Hall, Jr. can take pride in his long and honorable career to Bethesda Baptist Church. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Rev. Hall's commitment to his community and religion, and in wishing him well in his retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. I want to express my support for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This bill contains a provision that prohibits funds in the Act from being given to or used to provide support for the Executive Office of the President in coordinating the American Heritage Rivers. It also prevents the Council on Environmental Quality from receiving funds and support to coordinate and oversee the initiative. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which redirects federal resources without new spending, has greatly improved the Detroit River, a designated American Heritage River, through shoreline development and protection of wetlands. In the ten months that the River Navigator for the Greater Detroit American Heritage River has been in operation, over $1 million has been acquired for Detroit River projects. This program also assists communities in the use of Federal resources to help communities revitalize parks--to help celebrate their history and their heritage. This initiative needs our support and full participation and I strongly oppose any language which would put this program in jeopardy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican marriage penalty tax reform proposal and support the Democratic alternative for three simple reasons: the Democratic alternative is targeted, provides comprehensive relief, and is fiscally responsible, and the Republican plan is not. First, the Democratic relief plan is targeted: It confers 100% of its benefits on couples suffering a marriage penalty--when two individuals pay more in income taxes as a married couple, filing jointly than they would if they remained single. The Republican plan confers only 40 percent of its benefits to taxpayers who currently suffer a penalty. Of the remaining benefits, 37 percent go to couples currently receiving a marriage bonus--when two individuals pay less in income taxes as a married couple, filing jointly than they would if they remained single. So the Republican plan is effectively a singles penalty bill. Second, the Democratic relief plan is comprehensive: There are 65 areas of the tax code where a marriage penalty occurs--from the standard deduction to the earned income tax credit. The Democratic plan addresses all of them. In fact it completely eliminates the penalty--in all its forms--for couples earning up to $100,000, 80% of all married couples. The Republican plan addresses only 3 of the 65 places in the tax code where the marriage penalty occurs--it doesn't address the other 62. So the Republican plan provides inadequate, incomplete relief. Despite these deficiencies, or perhaps, because of them, the Republican plan carries an enormous, fiscally irresponsible price tag of $40 billion per year when fully in place--compared with $29 billion per year for the Democratic alternative. Allocating so much money to an inefficient, poorly targeted tax cut leaves no room for other important national priorities and threatens the very prosperity that has made tax cuts possible. The Democratic proposal is simply a better value for the American taxpayer.