Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I add my thanks to the two leaders for their efforts. We watch them with admiration as they seek to work through these multiple challenges. We have had many discussions concerning one of the items about which they talked. I just couldn't sit here without adding my gratitude to both of them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from West Virginia. Funding for National Parks

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would answer two questions regarding funding for the National Park Service?

Mr. LEVIN. I am aware that the bill before us contains funding for Operations of the National Park System in the amount of $1,443,795,000, which is more than $80 million above the Fiscal Year 2000 level. I am also aware that approximately $25.6 million has been provided for increases in the base operating budgets of more than 80 parks and related sites, including increases of $325,000 for Isle Royale National Park and $850,000 for Keweenaw National Historic Park. I greatly appreciate that the chairman and ranking member have been able to provide these amounts. I must say to my colleagues, though, that there is also a significant need for operating increases at other Michigan parks such as the North Country National Scenic Trail and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia whether such additional needs, including those above the President's request, will be considered in conference, or, in the event additional resources are not available, whether he would consider a reallocation of operational funds for Michigan parks?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his answer, and if he will indulge me a few moments more, I would like to also inquire about land acquisition funding for the National Park Service. First let me say that, while the administration did not include the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in its Fiscal Year 2001 land acquisition request, I nevertheless appreciate your support, Senator Byrd, in obtaining $1.1 million for acquisition of the LaPorte property. I would ask, however, if the Senator would be willing to consider in conference a second request of $4 million for purchase of the Barratt property at Sleeping Bear Dunes should additional funds become available as the appropriations process continues?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for presenting the Senate with an Interior appropriations bill which addresses so many of the Indian, natural resource, and energy issues confronting America today. I also want to reiterate my support for a program of great interest to me and my colleagues from the Great Lakes states. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes funding for a grants program for the implementation of fish and wildlife restoration projects recommended in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. Enthusiasm for this program has been high and proposals for grants have exceeded available funds. Nevertheless, the Administration has proposed discontinuation of these grants in its budget request. I thank the chairman and ranking member for recognizing the value of Great Lakes fish and wildlife restoration grants and maintaining funding for these grants at this year's $398,000 level. I would like to ask the distinguished ranking member if, should additional funds become available, he would consider increasing the grants funding for the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program by an additional $500,000?

Mr. LEVIN. As always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. cat island

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Hollings amendment to strike the tax cuts proposed in this legislation and devote those funds to reduction of the national debt. I supported and would prefer the Democratic proposal to eliminate the marriage penalty in the Tax Code. I voted for the Democratic plan and had it passed would not have supported the Hollings amendment. However, since the Democratic alternative to the pending bill was defeated yesterday by a 46-50 vote, and since the Republican bill would cost a wasteful $40 billion a year, reflecting the wrong priorities, I will support the Hollings amendment to better use those funds to pay down the national debt.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican proposal to repeal the Federal estate tax and support the Democratic alternative proposal to provide relief from the estate tax to those who need it most--small businesses and family farms. The current estate tax was first enacted by Congress in 1916, partly at the behest of President Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was right. It's appropriate to tax a little more those who have prospered greatly from the American political and economic systems in order to provide some assistance to those who have also worked hard but have fallen behind. That's the basic tenet of our progressive system of taxation. Roosevelt was also correct that the tax should not discourage people from seeing to it that their children are well-off, but rather be aimed at immense fortunes. That is why I support the Democratic proposal to reform the estate tax to provide prompt relief to small business owners and farmers, rather than the Republican proposal to repeal it gradually over the next ten years, but totally for even the greatest fortunes while making small businesses and farmers wait for relief. The Democratic proposal targets tax relief to persons with more modest estates and to small businesses and family farms and it does so at a more reasonable cost. By increasing the exemption for Qualified Family-Owned Business Interests from its current level of $2.6 million per couple to $4 million per couple in 2001, the Democratic alternative provides immediate relief by removing altogether more than 90 percent of family farms and more than 60 percent of small businesses from the estate tax rolls. In stark contrast, the Republican plan removes no one from the estate tax burden for another 10 years. In addition to providing relief immediately, the Democratic proposal does so at a more reasonable cost--$64 billion over 10 years, compared to $105 billion for the Republican repeal. This $40 billion difference can and should go to other important national priorities--such as a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, making a college education more affordable, extending Medicare's solvency, or reducing the national debt. But the Republican repeal will cost much more than that. In its second 10 years, 2011-2020, the same decade in which the baby boomers begin to retire and place enormous strains on the Medicare system and on Social Security, the Republican repeal is estimated to cost up to $750 billion. To give such a huge tax cut to a few thousand of the wealthiest among us at the expense of important national priorities for our children, grandchildren, and senior citizens is simply wrong. I believe that taxes should be distributed fairly among all Americans. I also believe that we have a responsibility to protect Medicare and Social Security, to pay down the national debt, and to make the investments in health-care, education and other key areas that will keep America strong in the future. The Democratic estate tax reform plan is consistent with these goals. The Republican plan puts them at risk.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few moments this afternoon to explain why I opposed the Republican proposal to repeal the Federal estate tax and why I supported the alternative Democratic proposal to provide relief in the estate tax for those who, in any judgment, need it the most, that is, small businesses, family farms, and those who are more modestly situated than those who would receive the most of the relief under the Republican proposal. The current estate tax was first enacted by Congress in 1916, partly at the behest of President Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was right; it is appropriate for there to be an estate tax on those who prosper so greatly in the American economic system in order to provide some assistance to those who have worked hard but have fallen behind and in order also to do some things we must do in order to improve our society and our communities. That is the basic tenet of a progressive system of taxation. I think President Teddy Roosevelt was also correct that the tax should not be designed in such a way as to discourage people from seeing to it that their children are more secure but, rather, it should be aimed at immense fortunes which have been created. That is why I supported the Democratic proposal to reform the estate tax to provide prompt relief to small business owners and farmers rather than voting for the Republican proposal which would have repealed it more slowly over the next 10 years but then would have totally repealed it for even the greatest portion. The Democratic proposal targets tax relief to persons with estates, small businesses, and family farms of up to $8 million. By increasing the exemption for qualified family-owned business interests from its current level of $2.6 million per couple to $4 million per couple in 2001 and $8 million per couple in 2009, the Democratic alternative provides significant immediate relief and then removes altogether the tax for the vast majority of the 2 percent of family farms and small businesses that are currently subject to the tax. In contrast, the Republican plan removes no one from the estate tax burden totally for another 10 years but then removes even the largest estate completely at huge costs to the Treasury. In addition to providing relief immediately, the Democratic proposal does so at a more reasonable cost--$64 billion over 10 years--compared to $105 billion for the Republican repeal. This $40 billion difference can and should go to other important national priorities, such as a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, making a college education more affordable, extending Medicare solvency, or reducing the national debt. The Republican repeal would cost much more than that because in the second 10 years--from 2011 to 2020, the same decade in which the baby boomers begin to retire and place strains on the Medicare system and on Social Security--the repeal is estimated to cost up to $750 billion. That is what these two charts show. There is a significant revenue loss from the Republican repeal, starting in 2010 at the rate of about $23 billion a year, going up to $53 billion a year in 2015, and then $66 billion a year in 2020, $82 billion in 2025, and so forth. That kind of severe strain on the Treasury begins in about the year 2010--that is, at the same time when there is a great demand on the Treasury to make payments to Social Security. Until about 2012, Social Security is in surplus. But then in about 2012, Social Security takes in less than it is paying out, and the Treasury from the general fund must begin to pay back to Social Security a part of the debt which has been built up for Social Security. Those payments significantly increase, starting in the near 2015 from $12 billion a year, to $183 billion in 2020, to $416 billion a year in 2025, and so forth. That is one of the major problems with the estate tax proposal the Republican majority offered--that the drain it is going to place on the Treasury, the loss to the Treasury, begins to hit severely at precisely the same time, or at least approximately the same time, as there is a significant shortfall for Social Security and when payments must be paid from the Treasury to Social Security if we are going to keep our promise to those who retire in those years. I believe taxes should be distributed fairly among all Americans. To give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest among us at the expense of important national priorities for the rest of us, at the risk of not being able to pay what is required to Social Security recipients, what is committed to be paid to them, and what was promised to be paid to the recipients of Social Security starting in the years 2012 and beyond, is a serious mistake. It is simply wrong. I believe the Democratic estate tax reform plan is consistent with national priorities and is consistent with keeping our commitments to Social Security. The alternative Republican plan puts those commitments at risk and puts those priorities at risk. That is why I thought the Democratic plan was fairer to our taxpayers and fairer to this Nation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Bill leaves his beloved mother, Gertrude; his wife Mattie, their two children, Monica and Jeffrey; Bill's three older sons, William, III, Jonathan, and Reverend Eric Beckham; his two sisters Connie Evans and Elaine Beckham of Florida; his brother Charles of Detroit; seven grandchildren, and innumerable friends. Together we will celebrate his life and cherish his memory. In closing, I would like to share with my colleagues an article which appeared in the Detroit Free Press the day after Bill's funeral. The article includes the very moving sentiments expressed by Monica Beckham about her father as well as expressions of others who were touched by Bill's generous spirit. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Detroit Free Press, May 4, 2000] Mourners Praise Beckham's Vision--2,000 at Funeral for Revered Detroit Civic Leader (By Ben Schmitt) William Beckham Jr. had a strategy to get home at a reasonable hour, as he juggled highranking jobs and late speaking engagements. He'd arrived early to evening meetings, empower the audience, gradually make his way toward the back door and vanish. ``How prophetic,'' said Willie Scott, a board member of Schools of the 21st Century, the Detroit school district's grant-funded educational partner. ``It is exactly how he lived and left us. He worked us as the audience and slipped out the back door.'' Beckham's funeral, a 2\1/2\-hour affair Wednesday at Greater Grace Temple in Detroit that drew more than 2,000 people, was full of memories, praise and grieving for the Detroit school reformer, president of the Skillman Foundation, Detroit's first deputy mayor and past president of New Detroit Inc. But it was an unscheduled speech by Beckham's 21-year-old daughter, Monica Beckham, that brought the tissues out in full force. ``One of the main things I will always remember about you was your ability to see the innate goodness in everybody,'' she said, while crying, ``It was so beautiful about you. You were the epitome of a father, a husband and a man,'' Beckham, who also worked for the Carter administration as an assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Treasury and deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, died April 27 of a pulmonary embolism in Bloomington, Ill., during a drive back from a family vacation. He was 59. Although his funeral attracted a mix of family, friends and high-ranking city and state officials, no special measures were taken for accommodations. Beckham would have wanted it that way, his brother said. ``Bill, as you know, thought everyone was a dignitary,'' said his younger brother, Charles Beckham. ``So if anyone's feelings were hurt, we certainly didn't intend that. It was in the vein of Bill saying that everybody's a dignitary; everybody's important.'' Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, Detroit Public Schools interim CEO David Adamany, retired MBD Bank President Tom Jeffs, retired General Motors Corp. Vice President William Brooks and DaimlerChrysler Vice President W. Frank Fountain were among those in attendance. Fountain wondered aloud, as he addressed the crowd, how the city will move forward without Beckham. ``It's an unfair question because no answer seems like the right answer,'' he said, ``We move forward the same way that Bill did during his lifetime: with hard work, humility and humor.'' Maureen Taylor, chair of Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, said she never knew what the J in William J. Beckham stood for. ``It probably stands for `Just in time,' '' she said to applause. ``He came in here with his sleeves rolled up. He came just in time to work with a multitude of jigsaw puzzle activities: children, grandchildren and schools boards. ``So we, too, are jolted by this premature departure. I guess it was premature to me and premature to you and for him it was just in time.'' Adamany said it's too early to say whether school reform will succeed. ``In Detroit, that success will be much more difficult because of Bill Beckham's untimely passing. But we can say with certainty that Bill's vision about the need for school reform was true. His vision began not with the school system, not with the people of power, but rather with the students.'' Charles Beckham, standing several steps above the flower- surrounded casket, described the church scene in a conversation with his older brother. ``This room is filled with everybody, all hues, colors and racial ethnicities,'' he said. ``There's a large crowd, and I know that wouldn't make you comfortable. But I swear I don't have anything to do with that. It's your fault because these people have been touched by you and love you.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the life of one of Michigan's great civic leaders, William J. Beckham, Jr. After living a remarkably accomplished life, sadly, Bill passed away April 27th while on vacation with his beloved wife, Mattie Maynard Beckham. This week, Bill's friends and colleagues and members of the Senate and the House will come together in our Nation's capital to celebrate his memory and his legacy. Bill loved life and all the important things in it--his family, his friends, school kids, and his African American heritage. Bill loved the difference that he was making in Michigan through his work on school reform--enhancing and expanding the quality of education for all students in the Detroit public school system. Behind Bill's dignified, gentle yet deliberate manner was a fierce determination to help improve the everyday lives of families. Multitudes were beneficiaries of his visionary efforts. He showed that character and the principles of hard work, integrity and perseverance can transform one's dreams into reality. He has left a mark of great achievement in civil rights, education, economic and political reform. Bill had a distinguished career of public service in Michigan, which included positions as Vice Chair of the School Board for the Detroit Public Schools, Chairman of the Schools of the 21st Century Corporation, President and Trustee of The Skillman Foundation, the first Deputy Mayor of Detroit, and President of New Detroit, Inc. His successful career in the private sector included key leadership positions at Burroughs/Unisys Corporation, Envirotest Systems Corporation in Phoenix and the Ford Motor Company. Bill also enjoyed a long and noteworthy career in federal service from 1967 through the early 1980s. Over a period of eight years, he served Senator Phil Hart in several capacities including Policy Adviser in his Washington office for 4 years, Chief of Staff of the Senator's office in Detroit for three years, and Campaign Assistant for one year. Bill subsequently served as Staff Director to the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Equal Opportunity, chaired by Representative Gus Hawkins. Sought out by President Jimmy Carter, Bill was nominated and confirmed first as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and later as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Bill joined with several of his staff colleagues to establish the first minority congressional staff group to study and act on the political and legislative demands of minority communities nationwide. The group's pioneering efforts in Quitman and Cohoma Counties in Mississippi, along with civil rights leader John Lewis and, my brother, Sander Levin (both of whom now serve in the House) helped to mark a new and powerful political and participatory direction for the people of the Mississippi Delta. Wise and loyal colleagues--Gordon Alexander, Jackie Parker, Judy Jackson, Willa Rawls Dumas, Alan Boyd, Dora Jean Malachi, Mattie Barrow and Bob Parker--declared Bill their leader. The group moved ahead and soon designed the legendary mission to the Mississippi Delta; and, under the direction of Julian Bond of the then-Southern Elections Fund, pursued other worthy political initiatives. Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record the names of the members of the William J. Beckham, Jr. Memorial Committee, all of whom were former staff colleagues of Bill's during his tenure of Federal service, including my current Deputy Legislative Director, Jackie Parker. These devoted friends and former colleagues organized this week's great tribute to Bill and will be attesting, along with others, to the truly incredible life that Bill led and the impact he had on their lives. I ask their names be printed in the Record. The material follows: William J. Beckham, Jr., Memorial Committee Gordon Alexander, Legislative Assistant, former Senator Birch Bayh, *President, 40+ Parenting, Inc. Robert Bates, former Special Assistant, Senator Edward Kennedy. Alan Boyd, Senior Aide, former Senator Clifford Case, *Charitable Games Control Board. George Dalley, former Chief of Staff, Rep. Charles Rangel. Winifred Donaldson, Chief of Staff, former Rep. Andy Jacobs. Willa Rawls Dumas, Senior Aide, former Rep. Silvio Conti, *Vice President for Administration, Directions Data, Inc. Ernestine Hunter, Senior Aide, former Senator John Glenn. Judy Jackson, Senior Aide, former Rep. Bob Eckhardt and Ex Assistant, Senate Finance Committee, *Executive Assistant, TRESP Associates. Carolyn Jordan, Legislative Assistant, former Senator Alan Cranston and Counsel, Senate Banking Committee, *Executive Director, National Credit Union Administration. Dora Jean Malachi, Senior Aide to former Senator John Sherman Cooper, Senator Marlow Cook and Congressional Budget Office. Mary Maynard, Clerk, House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunity, *AFL-CIO Legislative Division. Jackie B. Parker, Legislative Assistant, former Rep. James A. Burke, *Deputy Legislative Director, Senator Carl Levin. Annette C. Wilson, *U.S. Department of Transportation. *Currently

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, two new studies just released show that states with a high concentration of gun industry activity and weak gun laws tend to be the major suppliers of crime guns in other states. On June 28, 2000, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) released Gunland USA, a study which ranks states by their level of gun industry activity. For each state VPC reported the number of gun shows, licensed firearms retailers (including pawnshops), manufacturers producing firearms, and licensed machine gun dealers as well as the number of registered machine guns. In each of these categories, Texas ranks number one. Other states that showed a very high level of gun industry presence were California, Florida, Illinois, Georgia and Ohio. People in my state of Michigan may wonder how activity in other states like Illinois or Georgia affects them at home. A study released by Senator Schumer entitled War Between the States explains that many of the crime guns used in Michigan come from out of state. Interstate gunrunners acquire guns in states with weak laws and flood the markets in specific states and regions that have stricter gun laws. According to this report, states such as Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio--the same states with high levels of gun industry activity--are the major suppliers of guns used to commit crimes in other states with tougher gun laws. The study cites Michigan as a state ``with strict gun laws'' and as one with 41% of guns traced to crime coming from other states such as Ohio and Georgia. These findings demonstrate the need to tighten our national gun laws. Without national standards, states with a high level of gun industry presence and weak gun laws will continue to serve as major suppliers for gunrunners who traffic guns to states with tougher gun laws--states like Michigan. We must close the loopholes in our national framework for firearms distribution by among other things closing the gun show loophole.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the life of one of Michigan's great civic leaders, William J. Beckham, Jr. After living a remarkably accomplished life, sadly, Bill passed away April 27 while on vacation with his beloved wife, Mattie Maynard Beckham. This week, Bill's friends and colleagues and members of the Senate and the House will come together in our Nation's capital to celebrate his memory and his legacy. Bill loved life and all the important things in it--his family, his friends, school kids, and his African American heritage. Bill loved the difference that he was making in Michigan through his work on school reform--enhancing and expanding the quality of education for all students in the Detroit public school system. Behind Bill's dignified, gentle yet deliberate manner was a fierce determination to help improve the everyday lives of families. Multitudes were beneficiaries of his visionary efforts. He showed that character and the principles of hard work, integrity and perseverance can transform one's dreams into reality. He has left a mark of great achievement in civil rights, education, economic and political reform. Bill had a distinguished career of public service in Michigan, which included positions as Vice Chair of the School Board for the Detroit Public Schools, Chairman of the Schools of the 21st Century Corporation, President and Trustee of The Skillman Foundation, the first Deputy Mayor of Detroit, and President of New Detroit, Inc. His successful career in the private sector included key leadership positions at Burroughs/Unisys Corporation, Envirotest Systems Corporation in Phoenix and the Ford Motor Company. Bill also enjoyed a long and noteworthy career in federal service from 1967 through the early 1980s. Over a period of eight years, he served Senator Phil Hart in several capacities including Policy Adviser in his Washington office for four years, Chief of Staff of the Senator's office in Detroit for three years, and Campaign Assistant for one year. Bill subsequently served as Staff Director to the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Equal Opportunity, chaired by Representative Gus Hawkins. Sought out by President Jimmy Carter, Bill was nominated and confirmed first as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and later as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Bill joined with several of his staff colleagues to establish the first minority congressional staff group to study and act on the political and legislative demands of minority communities nationwide. The group's pioneering efforts in Quitman and Cohoma Counties in Mississippi, along with civil rights leader John Lewis and, my brother, Sander Levin (both of whom now serve in the House) helped to mark a new and powerful political and participatory direction for the people of the Mississippi Delta. Wise and loyal colleagues--Gordon Alexander, Jackie Parker, Judy Jackson, Willa Rawls Dumas, Alan Boyd, Dora Jean Malachi, Mattie Barrow and Bob Parker--declared Bill their leader. The group moved ahead and soon designed the legendary mission to the Mississippi Delta; and, under the direction of Julian Bond of the then-Southern Elections Fund, pursued other worthy political initiatives, during a time when there was only a handful of minority elected officials nationwide. Mr. President, I include for the Record the names of the members of the William J. Beckham, Jr. Memorial Committee, all of whom were former staff colleagues of Bill's during his tenure of federal service, including my current Deputy Legislative Director Jackie Parker. These devoted friends and former colleagues organized this week's great tribute to Bill and will be attesting, along with others, to the truly incredible life that Bill led and the impact he had on their lives. They are as follows: William J. Beckham, Jr. Memorial Committee Gordon Alexander, Legislative Assistant, former Senator Birch Bayh *President, 40+ Parenting, Inc. Robert Bates, former Special Assistant, Senator Edward Kennedy Alan Boyd, Senior Aide, former Senator Clifford Case *Charitable Games Control Board George Dalley, former Chief of Staff, Rep. Charles Rangel Winifred Donaldson, Chief of Staff, former Rep. Andy Jacobs Willa Rawls Dumas, Office Manager, former Rep. Silvio Conti *Vice President for Administration, Directions Data, Inc. Ernestine Hunter, Senior Aide, former Senator John Glenn Judy Jackson, Senior Aide, former Rep. Bob Eckhardt and Ex Assistant, Senate Finance Committee *Executive Assistant, TRESP Associates Carolyn Jordan, Legislative Assistant, former Senator Alan Cranston and Counsel, Senate Banking Committee *Executive Director, National Credit Union Administration Dora Jean Malachi, Senior Aide to former Senator Walter Huddleston and Senate Budget Committee Mary Maynard, Clerk, House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunity *AFL-CIO Legislative Division Jackie B. Parker, Legislative Assistant, former Rep. James A. Burke *Deputy Legislative Director, Senator Carl Levin Annette C. Wilson, *U.S. Department of Transportation *Currently Mr. President, Bill leaves his beloved mother, Gertrude; his wife Mattie, their two children, Monica and Jeffrey; Bill's three older sons, William, III, Jonathan, and Reverend Eric Beckham; his two sisters Connie Evans and Elaine Beckham of Florida; his brother Charles of Detroit; seven grandchildren, and enumerable friends. Together we will celebrate his life and cherish his memory.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank our chairman for his extraordinary leadership. Since Congress, in 1959, said that we were required to pass an annual authorization bill for the Defense Department, we have never failed. We have succeeded again this year, despite some real odds. We passed a record number of amendments. We did it because of the work of all the members of the Armed Services Committee, our staffs, and our leadership on both sides. If I can just single out one person, I want to single out, in the leadership, if I may, Senator Reid, for just sort of being here constantly to help us move the process forward. Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, all the leadership, our subcommittee chairmen, ranking members, our staffs really deserve credit for this. It is an extraordinary accomplishment, and it is a real feather in our chairman's cap.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise as an original co-sponsor of the Domenici Nuclear Cities amendment and to note that this important amendment was unanimously agreed to by the Senate. The Russia nuclear weapons complex is a vast collection of highly secret closed cities. This complex is far larger and has significantly more capability to produce nuclear weapons than the US nuclear weapons complex. Just over two years ago, the Department of Energy was presented with a unique opportunity to help Russia significantly reduce this complex, including the opportunity to close 2 of the three Russian nuclear weapons assembly facilities. The DOE through its nuclear cities initiative has been working closely with its Russian counterpart, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy, known as MinAtom, to reduce the size of the Russian nuclear complex by 50 percent. DOE started this effort just over two years ago, and while it took a while to get off the ground, the Nuclear Cities Program has begun to demonstrate real progress. This amendment would direct the Secretary of Energy to expand and accelerate the activities under the Nuclear Cities Program and further assist Russia in downsizing its nuclear weapons complex. To help with this effort the amendment will provide an additional $12.5 million over the current $17 million authorized in the bill. Compared to the overall defense budget this is a small amount but an amount that can help reduce the Russian nuclear weapons complex. This amendment directs the U.S. DOE and MinAtom, to enter into an agreement to establish a plan, with milestones, to consolidate the Russian nuclear weapons complex. In addition, MinAtom must agree, in writing, to close some of its nuclear weapons facilities, before the additional $12.5 million can be spent. We have a unique opportunity to further U.S. national security interests by closing some of the Russian nuclear weapons facilities. While the full burden to downsize the Russian complex remains a Russian obligation we can and should help. It is important to improve and further our relationship with Russian at all levels. The Nuclear Cities program provides many benefits to the U.S. and to Russia. The U.S. should grab this opportunity. In the future, Mr. President, I would like to see the program expanded further; this amendment is a good first step.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If my friend will yield, if I said Congress reauthorized instead of urging the Secretary to reconvene and to keep reconvened, I stand corrected and am happy to stand corrected. I think the intent was clear, however, of what the Senator from Michigan said.

Mr. LEVIN. I said the Secretary, not Congress.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Illinois for this amendment. It is a very important amendment. It really shows congressional interest in an area which is going to require a great deal of attention. That is the statement of General Welch himself, which my good friend from Virginia just read. I want to reread one of the lines in the Welch report, which is that: ``more advanced decoy suites are likely to escalate the discrimination challenge. The mid-course phase BMD concept used in the current national missile defense program has important architectural advantages. At the same time, that concept requires critical attention to potential countermeasure challenges.'' The countermeasures issue requires critical attention. What the Senator from Illinois is saying is that the Congress should pay some attention to this, not just the executive branch. I have no doubt, and my good friend from Virginia has no doubt, Secretary Cohen will pay attention to this. We do not know if the next Secretary of Defense will be as interested in this issue--we hope he will be--as this Secretary. But the fact that the executive branch is doing something has never prevented the Congress from putting something into law. We have had Presidents who have had Executive orders that we agree with, that we repeat in law. Why would we hesitate to simply express our own view, show congressional interest, and reinforce something which hopefully the Defense Department will continue to do? So it is not unusual for us to direct something. I think we ought to adopt this amendment overwhelmingly. This is a very complicated system. The Senator from Virginia pointed out that a few of our colleagues voted against the Cochran bill. Almost all of us voted in favor of it. One part of the Cochran bill said it should be our national policy--it is our national policy--to deploy a system when ``technologically feasible'' or words to that effect. But there is another provision in the Cochran bill which was added by amendment, by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, which I cosponsored, which said that it is also the policy of the United States to seek to continue to reduce, by negotiations, the number of nuclear weapons in this world. That is also the policy of the United States. We have two policies--a policy to deploy a limited missile defense and a policy to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. What happens when those two policies clash is unresolved in the Cochran bill. We must continue on both those courses. If there is a conflict between deploying a limited defense, after it is technologically proven--assuming it is--and reducing the number of nuclear weapons through continuing negotiations, if there is a conflict--as there apparently is at the moment, since Russia says she will not reduce further nuclear weapons if we are going to unilaterally deploy a national missile defense--if and when there is such a conflict, that conflict will have to be resolved under the circumstances at that time. So I think the Senator from Massachusetts was very proper in using the term ``we'' because many of us supported the Missile Defense Act because of the presence of a number of policies, both to deploy a system when technologically feasible, subject to appropriation, as well as to reduce, through negotiations, the number of nuclear weapons in this world. This amendment is a commonsense, fly-before-you-buy amendment. It is consistent with the Senate's traditions. And it is something we have almost always required. The few times we have deviated from the fly-before-you-buy approach, we have paid heavily for it, at least in a number of those instances. We should test against countermeasures. We are testing against countermeasures. This amendment simply says that it wants the Welch panel to be reauthorized, to continue in existence, to report to the Congress on defenses against countermeasures. Finally, I will reread the one line which I think is so important from the Welch panel: The national missile defense program requires critical attention to potential countermeasures challenges. That says it all to me. The current system does not address future countermeasure threats. It only addresses the so-called C-1 threat, as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out. There are going to be in the future much more sophisticated countermeasures which this system has to be able to address or else it won't make sense to deploy. That is what we would be going on record as saying we believe is important. We would be doing what the Welch panel says is important: paying critical attention to potential countermeasures challenges, saying that the Congress cares about this issue, that it makes sense to us that as part of any decision of operational effectiveness, that there be testing against reasonably likely countermeasures that could be faced by a national missile defense. I am glad my good friend from Virginia believes this is kind of a commonsense amendment, that it reinforces what the Secretary is already doing. I think it is very appropriate for Congress to do exactly that, to show our support when we do support something that is done by the executive branch and to state our opinion on the subject, and to put it in law so the next Secretary of Defense realizes it is in law and that there is congressional interest in the subject.

Mr. LEVIN. I think the Chairman has a workable solution. It is not the intent of the Committee that the National Guard should lose its ability to administer this highly successful program. Rather, the intent is that there be adequate policy direction and oversight of the Youth ChalleNGe program by the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. LEVIN. They can do it today. But 2005 is the year which the Secretary of Defense thought at the time he was making an assessment some time ago would be the earliest time that we would be able to field the national missile defense. So everybody--in the media, on this floor and just about everywhere-- has now taken the common wisdom that the 2005 date is when the national intelligence estimate says the threat will arrive. That is not what the national intelligence estimate is. The threat is any time when a three-stage Taepo Dong II could deliver a several- hundred-kilogram payload anywhere in the United States. And that day is when they next test it. With the general point my good friend from Massachusetts is making, I happen to agree with what he is saying. I certainly support the good Senator from Illinois on his amendment, but I think we ought to try to change the wisdom which has evolved around that date or the assumption or the press coverage of that date. Everybody uses that date for the wrong reason. Whether it is possible to reverse it, correct it, I don't know. But I think it would help the debate a great deal if we were able to look at that date for what it is, which is the first date that the Secretary of Defense thought, at the time he made the assessment some months ago, that a national missile defense could possibly be deployed.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield.