Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nebraska and my friend from New Mexico for their courtesies in sharing the floor so that we can chat about some of the issues which we will be taking up when we move to this bill tomorrow, which I hope and expect we will. One of the issues we are going to be taking up, which will probably take more time than other issues in this bill, is the Department of Energy reorganization issue. This comes to the floor on this bill. Whether it is the best place or not, it is going to happen. I think everyone wants this reorganization issue to be resolved, hopefully, in some kind of a consensus manner, if possible, in a way that it can become law. There is strong opposition in the House to the reorganization of the Department of Energy being added to either the Department of Defense authorization bill or to this appropriations bill, this intelligence appropriation. That is a fact of life we have to deal with. I suggest the more we are able to come together in a bill which has more of a consensus support, the stronger position we are going to be in, in trying to persuade the House to take up this matter promptly, for all the reasons the Senator from New Mexico gave, as well as to get the President to sign the bill. I hope we will take these hours between now and the time this bill is before the Senate to attempt to work out some of the differences that do exist. I simply want to summarize where at least I am in terms of the recommendations of the Rudman commission. I am for those recommendations. The label of the agency is not as important to me as the powers of this new agency--semiautonomous agency, separately organized agencies, as they are called, including DARPA. I believe we should have a separately organized agency which is synonymous with, I presume, a semiautonomous agency. That does not resolve the issue, simply to agree on a label. The question then is: What powers will that agency have and what is the relationship of that new agency to the Department of Energy? That is the issue we should try to resolve in a consensus manner if we possibly can. We want two things to be true: We want this agency to have a significant degree of autonomy, independence, separate organization, separate staff, legal advice, personnel advice. We want them to have their own set of staff so they can operate in a significantly independent way. On the other hand, we want the Secretary to be able to run his agency, to run the overall agency. If it is going to be in the Energy Department, if it is not going to be carved out of the Energy Department--which was the other alternative that Rudman suggested as a possibility--if it is going to be inside the Energy Department, then we have to have the Secretary be able to implement the policies of the Department of Energy, which have to apply to all parts of the Department of Energy, whether or not they are ``separately organized'' agencies within the Department. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I will come to that a little bit later, as to how other separately organized agencies within the Department of Defense have struck that balance. Reaching a consensus, instead of having a significantly divided vote, is going to strengthen the prospects for reorganization of the Department of Energy along the lines Senator Rudman has proposed. Do we need to reorganize the Department? We sure do. For 20 years or longer, there have been reports after reports after reports of lack of accountability, of duplication, of an inability for this Department to function in a very smooth and strong way, particularly as it relates to elements of national security. We should do something about it. We should do it now. It doesn't mean we should simply say let's delay it for some later time. On that, I think, there is a consensus. We ought to fix this Department, not just say let's do it at a later time. I hope there is also some agreement that we ought to take the few days that may be necessary to try to put together a reorganized DOE-- one which has a separately organized agency to handle these nuclear issues--so we can have a stronger chance of this becoming law. We have all been frustrated by the breakdown in security which the Cox commission report highlighted by the so-called PFIAB report, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which Senator Rudman chaired. That frustration has been compounded by the fact that past administrations and past Congresses have received literally dozens of intelligence studies, GAO reports, FBI briefings, going back to the mid-1970s, detailing inadequate security safeguards at the Department of Energy labs and detailing foreign espionage efforts to obtain sensitive U.S. technology. This has been going on for over 20 years. This is what Senator Rudman said at a joint hearing of four Senate committees: I had our staffs sit down and add up the number of reports that have found problems with the security of the DOE for the past 20 years. The numbers are astounding. 29 reports from the General Accounting Office, 61 internal DOE reports and more than a dozen reports from special task forces and ad hoc panels. Altogether, that is more than 100 reports, or an average of five critical reports a year for the past two decades. Here we are, 20 years down the road, Senator Rudman said, still battling with the same issues. I think you would agree with me, that is totally unacceptable. All Members listening that day I think were nodding our heads, without exception. As Senator Rudman noted last month, security at the Department of Energy has been an accident waiting to happen for over 20 years. Three administrations and Congress share the responsibility for not doing more over the years to heed the warnings of those reports to legislate corrective action. The challenge is to put that frustration, which we all share, to constructive use and to put in place an effective and workable management structure, the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program, that ensures our vital national security secrets are not compromised in the future. The Rudman recommendations include not just putting in place a separately organized agency but also putting that agency under the effective direction and control of the Secretary of Energy. That is going to be, it seems to me, what we have to resolve. We want it separately organized, but we want the Secretary to have effective direction and control of that agency. Those are two goals. Those two goals can be harmonized. They have been with other separately organized agencies, including some that I will mention in the Department of Defense which are used by Senator Rudman as his model, including DARPA. We should seek both things: That semiautonomy, or that separate organization, which will put some focus and accountability inside that agency. If we are going to leave it in the Department of Energy--and that seems to be the consensus, that we leave it inside the Department--we must be able to have a Secretary who can effectively direct and control that semiautonomous or separately organized agency within his Department. It is a real challenge, but it is doable. We will do it with some care. They are both legitimate goals. There have been some steps taken already to achieve those goals. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, we had a Presidential Decision Directive No. 61 which President Clinton signed over a year ago. The Rudman report noted, to its credit, in the past 2 years the Clinton administration has proposed and begun to implement some of the most far-reaching reforms in DOE's history. In February of 1998 that directive was signed. The Rudman report highlighted 5 of the most significant of the 13 initiatives in Presidential Directive No. 61. First, counterintelligence and foreign intelligence elements in DOE would be reconfigured into two independent offices and report directly to the Secretary of Energy. Second, the Director of the new Office of Counterintelligence would be a senior executive from the FBI and would have direct access to the Secretary of Energy. That is a very important question we are going to have to resolve and take up again, whether or not we want the director of a new Office of Counterintelligence to be not only a senior executive from the FBI but to have direct access to the Secretary of Energy. If we want to hold the Secretary of Energy accountable, which I do, then we have to access to him directly, it seems to me, a director of a new Office of Counterintelligence. That will be one of the issues we will be discussing and hopefully resolve. Third, existing DOE contracts with the labs would be amended to include counterintelligence program goals, objectives, and performance measures to evaluate compliance with these contractual obligations. Counterintelligence personnel assigned to the labs would have direct access to lab directors and would report concurrently to the Director of the Office of Counterintelligence. The Senate has also acted in a number of ways. We passed significant legislation this year under the leadership of Chairman Warner in the Armed Services Committee. We have adopted a series of measures in the National Defense Authorization Act which were designed to enhance counterintelligence, security, and intelligence activities at DOE facilities. These measures include putting in statute most of the specific recommendations on security and counterintelligence contained in PDD- 61. For instance, our bill, which is now in conference, includes a provision establishing separate offices of counterintelligence and security at DOE, each reporting to the Secretary. That provision, which the Senate already adopted, is in the DOD authorization conference, which is going on right now. It is taking up a Senate provision which establishes an office of counterintelligence and security at the DOE reporting directly to the Secretary. That is not inconsistent, in my book, with having a counterintelligence chief at the agency. I do not view that as being inconsistent. On the other hand, we have to be clear one way or the other as to whether or not we believe there is an inconsistency in having both a counterintelligence person for the entire agency directly reporting to the Secretary, as well as having this new agency having its own counterintelligence chief. To me, that is not inconsistent, but the people who are offering the amendment may view that as being an inconsistency.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. LEVIN. As I understand what you are saying, you want one Secretary to be able to have effective direction and control of this quasi-autonomous agency that is in his Department. With that standard, if that is a standard which you also accept, it seems to me that we ought to be able to find common ground. Whether that includes all the other Senators who have interests in this, neither of us can say. But as far as I am concerned, the test for me is whether or not we leave the Secretary of Energy like the Secretary of Defense with DARPA, having effective direction and control of that separately organized agency which has been called here a semiautonomous agency. That is my standard. I am going to continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle; and our staffs will share some amendment language which at least this Senator is working on. There are other Senators who have amendments as well. We will get you our amendment language by the end of the day in the spirit of trying to achieve some kind of a joint position on this going into the debate tomorrow. I am happy to yield the floor. I heard my friend from New Mexico indicate that he is only able to stay a few more minutes. I am basically done. There are a few more thoughts I have about some of the separately organized agencies inside the Department of Defense and the way they are organized. They were used as the models by Senator Rudman. If we follow those models, I think--not exactly and not precisely--but if we follow the spirit of those models, we will have a Secretary of Energy who can effectively direct and control his semiautonomous agency that would be created, including, it seems to me, to be effective, the use, as Senator Rudman pointed out, of advisers on his immediate staff to assist him in effectively directing and controlling--which are my last words, not Senator Rudman's. I yield the floor and thank my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. LEVIN. Exactly.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we've all heard the saying, ``if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again.'' It's a lesson we've been taught since childhood. It's a lesson used to teach children to be persistent and work hard if they want to achieve their goals. It is also a lesson that applies to the purchase of firearms, and it is one that Benjamin Smith knew all too well. Over the Fourth of July weekend, the majority of Americans were celebrating the birth of our nation. But the long holiday weekend produced yet another tragedy, made possible by the free flow of deadly firearms. A single man, Benjamin Smith, with a hatred for life, allegedly used a .22 caliber handgun and a .380 caliber semi-automatic handgun to murder two people and wound nine before ending his own life. The alleged gunman had a history of violence, a protection order filed against him, and belonged to an organization that espouses hatred toward minorities, yet, he was still able to purchase deadly firearms, all because he was persistent. Approximately one week before his killing spree, he had applied to purchase firearms from a licensed firearms dealer in Illinois. He obtained an owner identification card, filled out an application, and expected to retrieve his weapons shortly thereafter. A few days later, however, he returned to buy the weapons and was rejected by the licensed dealer after failing to pass the Illinois state background check. Unfortunately, Benjamin Smith knew his lesson, ``if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.'' Benjamin Smith knew of other means to obtain firearms. He knew that although he was not permitted to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, he would have few problems buying a gun on the street, from an unlicensed dealer. He knew that federal law requires that background checks be conducted by licensed dealers, but he also knew of a large secondary market in the United States that permits the free flow of weapons in to the hands of those who can not pass background checks. And, because he knew how easy it is to obtain a gun in the United States, Benjamin Smith was able to try, again, to purchase firearms for his killing spree. Smith's second attempt to purchase guns was successful and as a result, this dangerous young man was equipped with the two handguns believed to be used in the several Independence Day shootings. Because of this secondary market that allows easy accessibility of firearms, the nation is again mourning the loss of innocent lives lost to gunfire. And although the American public expresses continual outrage that federal firearms laws are not strong enough to prevent persons like Benjamin Smith from purchasing guns, Congress has not yet responded. We need to try, try again to pass meaningful legislation that will put an end to this senseless slaughter.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the Patients' Bill of Rights which Democrats have offered and fought for during these four days of consideration and which the Republican majority has weakened at every turn. I cannot support the inadequate substitute which Republicans have now put before us. The Republican bill is full of loopholes in the fundamental protections for patients which we seek to provide. In fact, the substitute Republican bill provides almost no protections for nearly two-thirds of Americans with health insurance. The Democratic bill would guarantee access to needed specialists. The Republican bill fails to guarantee patients access to needed specialists outside the HMO at no extra charge. The Democratic bill would assure access to the closest emergency room. The Republican does not guarantee access without financial penalty and prior authorization. The Democratic bill gives women the right to choose their OB/GYN as their primary doctor, as many women wish to do and protects women from ``drive-through mastectomies''. The Republican version is not adequate. And unlike the Democratic bill, the Republicans fail to hold HMOs accountable when their decisions and practices lead to the death or injury of patients. And, the Republicans would continue to allow insurance company officials to override the medical decisions of a patient's own doctors. Mr. President, in short, the Republican substitute for the Democratic bill is a mere shadow which does not deserve the title, ``Patients' Bill of Rights''. The core of the Democratic effort has been to ensure that insurance administrators not overrule a health care professional's medical decisions, that HMOs can be held accountable for their actions which is a responsibility every other industry has to its consumers, and to ensure that all insured are protected. The Republicans have developed a bill that leaves more than 113 million Americans with insurance unprotected because most of the provisions in their bill for the most part are narrowly applied to only one type of insurance, self-funded employer plans, which cover only 48 million of the 161 million people with private insurance. Our bill ensures that the special needs of children are met, including access to pediatric specialists. It provides important protections specific to women in managed care such as direct access to ob/gyn care and services and the ability to designate an ob/gyn as a primary care provider, and provides specific protections regarding hospital length-of-stay for mastectomy, by allowing the physician and patient to make decisions the length of stay in a hospital following a mastectomy or lumpectomy. The Republican bill does not prevent ``drive- through mastectomies.'' Additionally, our bill speaks to the issue of specialty care. Patients with special health conditions must have access to providers who have the expertise to treat their problems. Our amendment allows for referrals for enrollees to go out of the plan's network for specialty care, at no extra cost to the enrollee, if there is no appropriate provider available in the network. There are about 30 million Americans who have had trouble seeing specialists with their HMO plans. This includes women and children with special needs who either had critical care delayed or, worse, had that care denied. On the issue of emergency services, the Democratic amendment says that individuals must have access to emergency care, without prior authorization, in any situation that a ``prudent lay person'' would regard as an emergency. Survey after survey reveals that the American people support these proposed protections. And, there are over 200 patient groups and health care provider organizations, workers' unions, and employee groups, that stand behind the need for these patient protections. That list includes the American Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Associations, Center for Women Policy Studies and the Child Welfare League of America. We have a stark choice before us, a strong Patients' Bill of Rights that protects patients or a weak bill aimed at protecting insurance companies. Earlier this week, Mr. Steve Geeter, husband and father of two young children of Grass Lake, Michigan, stopped by to visit with my office. Mr. Geeter has terminal brain cancer and will be participating in an experimental clinical trial at the National Institutes of Health over the next several months. Mr. Geeter and his wife spent a considerable amount of time with my staff discussing his options and limitations under his HMO plan and the need for reforms, including access to clinical trials. I very much appreciate Mr. Geeter taking the time to share his HMO experiences with my office. They substantiate the need for the legislation before us. Several months ago, Mr. Geeter's HMO plan required that he be released from the hospital after 24 hours of intensive care following brain surgery. The plan's justification was that Mr. Geeter had passed the neurological exams and transfer to a room would cost too much. Mr. Geeter subsequently developed complications and had to be returned to the hospital emergency room. This may have been averted with just an additional 1-day hospital stay- over. The Democratic amendment would have protected patients, such as Mr. Geeter, from an insurance company official requiring that they be discharged from the hospital prematurely. Plans would no longer be able to deny promised benefits based on an interpretation of medical necessity defined by insurance companies rather than the patient's health care provider. The Democratic amendment used a professional standard of medical necessity--based on case law and standards historically used by insurance companies. Mr. Geeter also expressed strong support for the Democratic amendment on access to clinical trials of experimental treatments, which offer patients access to cutting-edge technology and are the primary means of testing new therapies for deadly diseases. Historically, insurance plans have paid the patient care costs for clinical trials, not the costs of the experimental therapy itself. However, research institutions, particularly cancer centers, increasingly are finding that trials, which once were paid for by health insurance, must be curtailed because of lack of payment by managed care plans. Clinical trials may be the only treatment option available for patients who, like Mr. Geeter, have failed to respond to conventional therapies. Under the amendment, trials are limited to those approved and funded the National institutes of Health {NIH ; a cooperative group or center of the NIH; or, certain trials through the Department of Defense or the Veterans Administration. The Republican bill provides no hope for patients with no options other than a promising experimental treatment down the road. A study is not enough for a patient with a life- threatening disease when there are no other treatment options and there is nowhere else to turn. In addition to having the benefit of the input of Mr. Geeter, I've communicated with others in my state. Over the past several months, I have traveled around Michigan and met with constituents various communities to get their thoughts on our efforts here in the Senate. I have had discussions with physicians, hospital administrators, nurses, seniors, city and county government representatives and health care advocates. Ms. Myrna Holland, a resident of Ferndale, Michigan and Director of Nursing Education at Providence Hospital expressed concern that patient choice is limited when HMOs engage in restrictive practices such as ``doctor-only'' policies. These professionals include, but are not limited to, certified nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners physical therapists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors. This is particularly important for patients living in rural areas. Many rural communities have a difficult time recruiting physicians, and often non- physician providers are the only source of health care in the local area. If a managed care plan covers a particular service, but there is no one in the community to provide it, rural patients are too often forced to drive long distances, incurring expense, to get the care they need. The Democratic amendment would have prohibited HMOs from arbitrarily refusing to allow health care professionals to participate in their plans by virtue of their licensure or certification. The Republican bill would allow HMOs to continue restrictive practices, leaving consumers with an inadequate choice of health care providers or limited access to health care. Robert Casalou, Acting Administration of Providence Hospital in Michigan, raised concerns about continuity of care. The Democratic amendment assured continuity of care. When health plans terminate providers without cause or when employers switch health plans for their employees, quality of care for patients currently undergoing treatment can be severely threatened.. For example, a patient who is undergoing a course of chemotherapy should not have to change physicians abruptly in the middle of treatment, and a woman who is pregnant should not have to change doctors before she gives birth. The Democratic amendment allowed for a transition to lessen those problems. When a doctor no longer is included as a provider under a plan, or an employee changes plans, our amendment provided for at least 90 days of transitional care for any patients undergoing an active course of treatment with that doctor. The amendment also provided special protections for pregnancy, terminal illness, and institutionalization. Additionally, Mr. Casalou, and others, expressed support for holding HMOs accountable for their actions. Today, 123 million Americans who receive insurance coverage through a private employer cannot seek redress for injuries caused by their insurer. All they can claim is the cost of the benefit denied or delayed. Even if an HMO has been directly involved in dictating, denying or delaying care for a patient, it can use a loophole in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to avoid any responsibility for the consequences of its actions. ERISA was designed to protect employees from losing pension benefits due to fraud, mismanagement and employer bankruptcies during the 1960s, but the law has had the effect of allowing an HMO to deny or delay care with no effective remedy for patients. The Democratic amendment would have closed this loophole, ensuring that HMOs can be held accountable for their actions. It did not establish a right to sue. It simply says Federal law will no longer block what the States deem to be appropriate remedies for patients and families who are harmed. The only time an employer can be held responsible is when the employer is involved directly in a specific case and makes a decision that leads to injury or death. Donald Anderson, who I spoke with in Detroit, is a quadriplegic who is in a wheelchair who changed jobs and also changed health care providers. Donald's new provider would not cover a rolling commode wheelchair for him after the wheel broke on the wheelchair he owned, even though his doctor classified the chair as a medical necessity. Our amendment would have allowed the physician, not the insurance company, to decide what prescriptions and equipment are medically necessary. The amendment provided that a plan may not arbitrarily interfere with or alter the decision of the treating physician regarding the manner or particular services if the services are medically necessary. Under the Democratic amendment, Donald would have received a rolling commode. In Grand Rapids, I spoke with another constituent of mine, Dr. Willard Stawski, a general surgeon. Dr. Stawski told me about a patient of his who did not seek care for her hernia because she was told by her HMO that it was an unnecessary operation. Dr. Stawski told me that after his patient elected not to have the operation, she became very ill. Gangrene set in and she died several months later. Under the Democratic amendment, this tragedy might have been averted. What a doctor deems to be medically necessary, is the medical treatment that the patient receives. Thus, Dr. Stawski's patient would have had the surgery because Dr. Stawski said that the surgery was medically necessary. All we were asking for with this amendment is that patients be able to receive the care that a doctor or other medical professionals deems to be medically necessary. Doctors are frustrated, patients are frustrated. The Republican majority defeated our efforts to adopt these good amendments. Mr. President, while I cannot support the Republican susbstiutute bill, I hope we will have a later opportunity to pass a strong bill of rights. The public wants a strong one and they are right.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1972, Congress established the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent regulatory agency designed to ``protect the public from unreasonable risks of injuries and deaths associated with consumer products.'' Since 1972, CPSC has worked to accomplish that goal by developing uniform safety standards, obtaining the recall of dangerous products, and researching, informing and educating consumers about product related hazards. CPSC has jurisdiction over thousands categories of products, from furniture to sporting equipment, appliances, clothing and toys. Although almost all categories of consumer products are reviewed for safety, there are millions of dangerous products in the United States that go untested. These products, which are among the leading cause of death in the United States, are exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They are not subject to any quality and safety standards, nor are their manufacturers required to provide warnings to consumers about their hazards. These products are firearms, and despite the fact that they kill some 35,000 people each year, they are exempt from oversight by the federal agency that provides Americans with lifesaving information. The fact that guns are one of the only categories of products not subject to regulation is another example of a loophole in our federal firearms law. In the 1968 Gun Control Act, Congress set quality and safety standards for imported guns, yet failed to impose such criteria on domestically manufactured weapons. As a result, many of the guns manufactured today lack even the most basic kind of safety devices. Gun manufacturers have the ability to include basic safety mechanisms in their firearms that would substantially reduce firearm related deaths. Yet most gun manufacturers have refused to implement even the most basic technology in their products. It would surprise most Americans to know that firearms manufactured in the United States are not required to pass a ``drop test,'' a series of tests and measurements to ensure that guns will not accidentally fire if dropped. Nor are they required to include simple features on firearms, such as load indicators which tell the user the gun is loaded. Many firearms also lack a magazine disconnect safety, a small safety improvement that costs approximately 50 cents, and could save the lives of hundreds of children who die from unintentional shootings. In addition, there are no requirements that firearms are manufactured with internal locking devices or combination locks. These are simple solutions for safety, but until guns are regulated as a consumer product, they are unlikely to be implemented by domestic manufacturers. Manufacturers should also pursue technology to develop ``smart'' or ``personalized'' guns. Although there is no such working weapon that uses this technology now, there are plans by some manufacturers to explore the development of smart guns that recognize their owners through fingerprints, radio emissions or skin conductivity. The NRA and other gun manufacturers, such as Berretta U.S.A. Corp, are opposed to the development of smart gun technology, because they believe it would lead to mandatory safety standards. Yet, personalization concepts that allow only the authorized user access to his firearm, are sure to decrease the number of fatal unintentional injuries, homicides and suicides. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is capable of monitoring firearms, just as they review baby cribs, hair dryers, basketballs, even toy guns, and the thousands of other products manufactured in the United States. But until Congress amends the Consumer Product Safety Act and revokes this special privilege given to firearms manufacturers, guns manufactured in the United States are unlikely to include even basic safety mechanisms.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a physician from my home state of Michigan, Dr. Eugene Oliveri, who will be named the new President of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) at the Association's annual meeting in July. Dr. Oliveri practices at two outstanding medical facilities in Metropolitan Detroit. He is a senior member of the Department of Internal Medicine at Botsford Hospital in Farmington Hills, Michigan, where he also serves as Chairman of the Department of Gastroenterology and as Director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program. Dr. Oliveri is also affiliated with Huron Valley Hospital in Milford, Michigan. Dr. Oliveri has established himself as a national leader in the osteopathic profession. He serves on a number of professional boards, is sought after as a visiting lecturer, and is committed to training and inspiring the next generation of osteopathic physicians. In fact, there are two osteopaths in the Oliveri family, and I know it is a point of pride for Dr. Eugene Oliveri that his daughter, Lisa, chose to pursue the profession to which he has dedicated so much of his life. The state of Michigan is a leader in the practice of osteopathy. One hundred and two years ago, Michigan was the fourth state in the nation to legalize the practice of osteopathy. Today's osteopathic physicians and surgeons integrate standard medical practices with the body's natural systems for regulating and healing itself, especially with the largest of these systems, the musculoskeletal system. Dr. Oliveri follows in the tradition of the thousands of skilled and dedicated osteopathic doctors who have practiced medicine in Michigan for more than a century. Mr. President, Dr. Eugene Oliveri has distinguished himself as a physician, as a teacher and as a leader of his profession. It is fitting that Dr. Oliveri, who practices medicine in a state which has such a longstanding commitment to osteopathic medicine, will be elected President of the American Osteopathic Association. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Dr. Oliveri on his achievements and in wishing him well during his tenure as President of the AOA.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on June 10th we held a hearing on home health care in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Subcommittee where we examined how the so called ``reforms'' of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 were holding up. I continue to believe that the answer to that question is, ``not well.'' That is why I am joining with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Chairman of the PSI Subcommittee, in introducing an important bill, the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1999. Home health care agencies provide a vital service to many elderly Americans. In my own state of Michigan there are over 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries. Over 100,000 of these beneficiaries use the services of Michigan's 223 home health agencies. People prefer to recuperate in their own homes, and it is also less costly for the government since the alternative is nursing home care which is extraordinarily expensive for the Medicare program. I am concerned about potential access problems. Although HCFA and the GAO have reported that they have not seen a decline in access for beneficiaries, the home health care witnesses that spoke before the PSI Subcommittee all stated that they believed there was an access problem. In fact, Barbara Markham Smith, from the George Washington University Medical Center, testified that ``many seriously ill patients, especially diabetics, appear to have been displaced from Medicare home care.'' Sometimes it takes a while for the people in the field to actually get the numbers back to the people in Washington, and I think this is one of those instances. We all know that during the early 90's home health care expenditures grew at a rapid pace. According to the GAO, Medicare spent $3.7 billion to pay for home health visits in 1990 compared to $17.8 billion in 1997. This growth led to changes, like the interim payment system, (IPS) that were implemented under the Balanced Budget Act. While some of the changes under the Balanced Budget Act were good, some of the changes are now negatively impacting Medicare beneficiaries. I have heard from many constituents regarding home health care changes under the Balanced Budget Act and the various regulations that HCFA has imposed. In fact, last year, I received some 1500 letters from both home health care providers and beneficiaries. I echo their concerns when I say that the interim payment system penalizes cost efficient home health providers, like those in Michigan, while rewarding higher cost agencies. Not only does the IPS penalize agencies that attempted to keep their costs down in 1994, but the new regulations which HCFA has imposed on the agencies are quite burdensome. There is no more poignant story to demonstrate the undue burdens being placed on home health care providers than that of Linda Stock, a Michigan home health care provider. This month Ms. Stock testified before the PSI Subcommittee about the problems that home care providers were having, particularly cost efficient home care providers like her own. Last week Ms. Stock called to let me know that she has resigned from her job because she did not feel that she could ask her staff to implement regulations such as OASIS (Outcome and Assessment Information Set) and the 15 minute increment home health reporting requirement. It is tragic that a committed health care provider such as Linda Stock would feel the need to resign from her job rather than implement regulations which she believed were unfair to both beneficiaries and providers. So what can be done in the face of these problems? I believe that the bill we are introducing today, if enacted, could go a long way towards helping Ms. Stock and others like her. Last year I worked on a bill with Senator Collins to revise the payment formula used to calculate the per beneficiary limit. That bill would have created new winners and losers under the IPS. This year's bill does not attempt to revise the formula, and therefore avoids the formula fight which made action on this issue so difficult last year. Our new bill makes needed adjustments to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and related federal regulations. Though technical in nature, I would like to read the major provisions found in the bill: (1) The bill will eliminate the automatic 15 per cent reduction in Medicare home health payments now scheduled for October 1, 2000. (2) The bill will provide supplemental payments to home health agencies on a patient by patient basis if the cost of care for an individual is considered by the Secretary to be significantly higher than average due to the patient's particular health and functional condition. (3) The bill will increase the per beneficiary cost limit for agencies with limits below the national average to the national average cost per patient over a three year period or until the Medicare home health prospective payment system is implemented. (4) The bill will revise the surety bond requirement for home health agencies to more appropriately target fraud (5) The bill will extend the IPS overpayment recoupment period to three years without interest (6) The bill will eliminate the 15 minute incremental reporting period (7) The bill temporarily maintains the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP) program, a program that permits HCFA to make payments to agencies-based on historical payment levels--prior to the final settlement of claims and cost reports. I believe that this bill provides an opportunity for us to move forward in solving some of the problems caused by the Balanced Budget Act. We should pass this common sense bill that will ensure that home care is accessible to those seniors who so desperately need it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the foreign operations appropriations bill being considered by the Senate. There is one area of this bill that I believe deserves particular attention, and that is the series of provisions relating to U.S. funding for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO. This is the organization that is implementing certain provisions of the U.S.-North Korean nuclear Agreed Framework of 1994. U.S. funds for KEDO pay for the heavy fuel oil that the U.S. is committed to provide to North Korea in exchange for its agreement to freeze and eventually dismantle its plutonium production program that could be used for nuclear weapons. Mr. President, that Agreed Framework is working in our national security interests now. Under that agreement, North Korea has frozen its plutonium production facilities and canned almost all of the spent nuclear reactor fuel from its graphite-moderated reactor in Yongbyon, all under the watchful eye of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) personnel and monitoring instruments. As recent Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have repeatedly and consistently testified to Congress, it is clearly in our security interest that North Korea not produced any more plutonium and that its spend reactor fuel be canned and removed from North Korea. In addition, it is important for North Korea to account for all its past plutonium production to the satisfaction of the IAEA. If, and only if, North Korea satisfies all those requirements of the Agreed Framework, then KEDO, will provide two lightwater nuclear power production reactors to North Korea, with South Korea and Japan paying the overwhelming majority of the cost of those reactors. The U.S. is required to provide heavy fuel oil to North Korea on an agreed schedule, and we have had a spotty record so far, largely because of Congressional funding reductions and restrictions. But we have managed to deliver the required oil, albeit sometimes late. This bill would reduce the Administration's funding request for heavy fuel oil from $55 million to $40 million dollars, a decrease of $15 million. This reduction would prevent the U.S. from purchasing and delivering the required heavy fuel oil to North Korea. In my view, what would be a serious mistake. If we do not provide the required heavy fuel oil under the Agreed Framework, we would be failing to meet our commitments under the Agreed Framework. This would provide North Korea with a ready-made excuse to withdraw from or violate the Agreed Framework, something we should all recognize would be contrary to our national interests and bad for U.S. security. As long as North Korea meets its obligations under the Agreed Framework, we should meet our commitments and obligations under the Agreed Framework, including providing the funds necessary to deliver all the required heavy fuel oil to North Korea. Mr. President, this bill also places unnecessary and unworkable restrictions on the obligation of the $40 million that is provided for KEDO. These are contained in certifications required before the funds can be obligated. Two of these certifications go beyond the terms of the Agreed Framework and would make it very hard for the U.S. to provide funds to KEDO, unless the President uses a waiver. I believe it is important that we work in good faith to keep North Korea in compliance with its obligations under the Agreed Framework, and that includes our obligation to provide the necessary funds to deliver the required heavy fuel oil to North Korea. When the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee members met recently with Former Defense Secretary William Perry, the President's Special Advisor on North Korea, one of my colleagues asked Dr. Perry what Congress could do to help move North Korea in a more peaceful and cooperative direction. Dr. Perry indicated that the most important Congressional action would be to provide full funding for KEDO. I believe Dr. Perry is correct. Mr. President, for these reasons I offer an amendment to the bill that states the sense of the Senate that, ``as long as North Korea meets its obligations under the U.S.-North Korean nuclear Agreed Framework of 1994, the U.S. should meet its commitments under the Agreed Framework, including required deliveries of heavy fuel oil to North Korea and support of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO).'' This amendment puts the Senate on record as stating its view that the United States should meet its commitments under the Agreed Framework, including the heavy fuel oil and KEDO commitments. Mr. President, I believe this amendment improves the bill and makes it clear that the Senate wants the U.S. to uphold its end of the Agreed Framework, and I hope that the bill's provisions relating to KEDO can be modified in conference and that the Administration's requested funding will be restored in conference, to reflect the view of the Senate as expressed in my amendment. amendment no. 1175 (Purpose: To provide Tibetan refugee relief) On page 17, line 10, before the period insert the following: ``That of the amounts appropriated under this heading, $1.5 million shall be made available to Habitat for Humanity International for the purchase of 14 acres of land on behalf of Tibetan refugees living in northern India, and the construction of multi-unit development.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the McConnell amendment striking the provision in the Brownback amendment, also called the Silk Road Act, which would grant the President authority to waive Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Section 907 is an important provision of our law which prohibits U.S. Government assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan until it takes ``demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh.'' For the last 10 years, the Government of Azerbaijan has resisted taking such simple steps and instead has maintained its blockade of the transportation of food, medicine, fuel and other important items to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. The Azeri blockade has led to great human suffering while seriously hampering economic development of the region. I cannot support the Silk Road Act as offered because by allowing for the waiver of Section 907 we would be removing one of the last remaining incentives we have to induce the Azeris to enter into good faith negotiations over this conflict. I believe that we all have similar goals for the region which include: economic development and cooperation; fostering of democratic principles; and the adherence to universally recognized human rights standards. Allowing for the waiver of Section 907 runs counter to these important goals by rewarding a nation which has blockaded its neighbors, maintained an authoritarian government that took power in a nondemocratic fashion, and has a human rights record that has been recognized by the U.S. State Department as ``poor.'' I urge my colleagues to support the continuation of Section 907.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. A few of the headlines read: ``A Prosecutor Without Public Trust,'' ``Ken Starr's Misjudgments,'' and ``Starr Steps Out of Bounds.'' Robert Morgenthau, in fact, the District Attorney for Manhattan, and one of the most respected prosecutors in the country, is quoted as saying that Mr. Starr violated ``every rule in the book.'' Some argue that the statute should be scrapped. I cannot agree, provided that we can prevent the abuses we have experienced in the past. We need a mechanism to address credible allegations of serious criminal wrongdoing by top executive branch officials. We have made improvements in the statute each of the three times it has been reauthorized over the past 20 years. We have required independent counsel to comply with established Justice Department policies and procedures; we have added standards of conduct for independent counsel; and we have added a whole new host of cost controls, including requiring new independent counsel to comply with the expenditure policies of the Justice Department with respect to salary levels, use of Government office space and travel. But we obviously have failed to foreclose opportunities for major excesses and clear abuses by independent counsel. Unless we can amend the law sufficiently to stop the excesses and abuses in the future--and I think we can do that--then the law should lapse. We need a law but only if the law ensures that individuals who conduct these investigations are highly qualified, nonpartisan attorneys with good judgment and common sense who are bound in by appropriate limits. The list of lessons learned over the last few years is long. We have tried to incorporate them into the bill we are introducing today. The first issues concern the appointment of the independent counsel. There was a high degree of dissatisfaction and concern with the choice of Kenneth Starr as independent counsel in the Whitewater matter. The investigation was already well underway with Special Counsel Bob Fiske who had been appointed by Attorney General Reno. Mr. Fiske was a well- respected, veteran prosecutor who had also been a lifelong Republican. To remove any doubt about whether he could be appointed under the reauthorized independent counsel law as well, Congress had specifically authorized the special division of the court to reappoint him. But the three judge special division took it upon itself to terminate Mr. Fiske and replace him with Mr. Starr. Many of us challenged the court's decision at the time, arguing that Mr. Starr was a highly partisan person who could not bring the necessary appearance of independence to the job. At the time of his appointment he was linked to the Paula Jones case, having argued publicly against the President's position on immunity from civil suit. It turns out he had also conferred numerous times with attorneys for Paula Jones. He had served as the Finance Co- Chairman of the Congressional campaign of a Republican in Alexandria, Virginia. At the time of Mr. Starr's appointment I wrote to the Special Division and urged them to reconsider their decision. ``The issue with respect to Mr. Starr,'' I said, ``. . . is that he lacks the necessary appearance of independence essential for public confidence in the process.'' Our concerns have proven to be true over time, to the point that Mr. Starr is perceived by the public as a partisan prosecutor. Our bill would make some very important changes in the current process in this regard. First, the special division of three judges who make independent counsel appointments under current law are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the court picks an independent counsel from a list of candidates developed by the special division from various recommendations over time. Our bill would require that the judges who serve on the special division court be picked by lottery from a pool of all of the federal appellate court judges. The Special Division would then be required to develop a list of qualified candidates to serve as independent counsels from a list of five candidates from each federal circuit selected by the chief judge of each circuit. Our bill would explicitly prohibit an independent counsel candidate from having an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and it would encourage the appointment of an individual with prosecutorial experience. Mr. Starr was not a prosecutor. In making a number of critically important judgment calls, Mr. Starr demonstrated a lack of understanding of the discipline a prosecutor needs in order to exercise the tremendous discretion and power of the office with fairness and justice. The bill would seek to remedy this by requiring the individual appointed as independent counsel to have prosecutorial experience ``to the extent practicable.'' Many people expressed concern over the large and lucrative private practice Mr. Starr continued to have as independent counsel. We will never know if the investigation into the President could have been concluded much more expeditiously had Mr. Starr set aside his private practice from the inception of his appointment, but it's a reasonable possibility at least that it could have been. Independent counsel appointments are supposed to receive the highest priority and the public benefits from a timely resolution of the allegations. Our bill would require an independent counsel to devote full time to the investigation to bring it to a prompt conclusion, because we think doing so has important benefits to the public interest. Another area has to do with the scope of jurisdiction. This has been an area of great concern to some of us. That relates particularly to Mr. Starr's investigation, because he was originally appointed to investigate the Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan matter as it possibly related to President Clinton. But he ended up prosecuting a multitude of other matters. At one point his office even interviewed Arkansas State troopers about President Clinton's relationship with a number of different women when he was Governor. Moreover, Mr. Starr had his jurisdiction expanded to include Travelgate, Filegate, and the Monica Lewinsky matter. With each expansion, he looked more and more like a prosecutor pursuing a person instead of a prosecutor pursuing a crime. In the end he became Javert to President Clinton's Jean Valjean. Our bill limits the scope of the original grant of jurisdiction to only those matters that are ``directly'' related to an independent counsel's original jurisdiction, and eliminates the provision allowing an expansion of jurisdiction. Such matters would be investigated by the Department of Justice or, if appropriate, a new independent counsel could be appointed. Only in this way can we prevent an independent counsel from becoming a permanent prosecutor of the President or any other covered official. Experience has also taught us that some of these independent counsel investigations develop huge staffs over time--far beyond those that would be available in an ordinary investigation. At one point, it was alleged that the Starr investigation was one of the top three investigations in terms of numbers of FBI agents in the country-- ranking right up there with the Unibomber and the World Trade Center bombing. Our bill would limit the number of detailees from the FBI and the Department of Justice to a number reasonably related to the number of staff the Justice Department or FBI normally assigns to a similar case. One of my greatest concerns in the past five years has been the failure of Mr. Starr to comply with both the spirit and, I believe, the letter of the law with respect to the requirement that an independent counsel follow established Department of Justice policies. I have made several floor statements identifying the particular instances in which I believe Mr. Starr has exceeded Justice Department policies, so I will not elaborate here. The current law requires an independent counsel to follow established Justice Department policies except to the extent to do so would undermine the purposes of the independent counsel law. That exception, which was intended to be a very narrow exception, has been used by Mr. Starr to justify a laundry list of questionable actions. The bill we are introducing today would eliminate that exception and provide that the only policy an independent counsel would be allowed to ignore would be that part of a policy or guideline that requires approval by a top Justice Department official. The bill provides that even in that situation, the independent counsel should consult with a top Justice Department official; he or she just isn't required to get that official's approval. The bill also creates a remedy for the situation where a target or witness in an independent counsel investigation believes the independent counsel is not complying with established Justice Department procedures. Currently, Justice Department policies are not enforceable in court, and several individuals who attempted to enforce compliance by Mr. Starr were turned away by the court. This bill would give such an individual an explicit right to first obtain an opinion by the Attorney General as to whether an independent counsel was complying with a specific Department of Justice policy, and if the Attorney General determines that the independent counsel is not, the bill allows the person to seek enforcement from the special court. Mr. Starr took the unusual step in his investigation to hire an outside ethics attorney. The bill requires an independent counsel to use as his or her ethics adviser the person already housed in the Department of Justice who is familiar with the ethical rules and regulations of a Justice Department Attorney--the designated agency ethics official or DAEO. This will help to keep the office of the independent counsel in tune with the ethical requirements of other investigative offices, giving greater assurance that Justice Department policies with respect to ethics issues will be followed. Great concern has developed over the cost of these independent counsel investigations. Mr. Smaltz spent some $20 million to have a 30 count indictment rejected by a jury. Mr. Starr is likely to be the most expensive independent counsel ever--topping $50 million when all is said and done. These figures are shocking. The bill would address this problem by requiring an independent counsel to establish a budget with consultation of the Attorney General and the General Accounting Office to review the budget and submit a written analysis to Congress. We have tried with every reauthorization of this statute to obtain cost controls over the operations of the independent counsels. We've made some progress, but obviously more needs to be done. The bill also sets a two year presumptive limit on the work of an independent counsel and requires the independent counsel to affirmatively seek an extension for one year from the special court. By requiring an independent counsel to establish a budget and presumptively limiting the term of an independent counsel to two years, I believe we will impose a useful and meaningful cost control on these offices. A final concern that many of us have had with the independent counsel law is the provision regarding the referral of information to the House of Representatives regarding possible impeachable offenses. Mr. Starr's report to the House was not only shockingly and unnecessarily graphic, it was a brief for impeachment, far beyond the role envisioned by the independent counsel law. Mr. Starr's report also violated the fairness expected by the American people by presenting information on possible impeachable offenses in a biased and prejudicial manner. Under the Constitution, the House has sole responsibility to decide whether or not the President should be impeached. The independent counsel did not have a statutory responsibility to argue for impeachment. His responsibility was to forward ``information'' to the Congress that ``may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'' Our bill would eliminate the provision with respect to impeachment, removing any obligation on the part of an independent counsel to take any initiative in this which is reserved exclusively to the House of Representatives by the Constitution. Finally, it is clear, obviously, that the independent counsel law is going to expire tomorrow. We are going to have the cooling off period that former Senator Howard Baker prescribed during our Governmental Affairs Committee hearings. I hope that after a reasonable cooling off period we will turn our attention to reestablishing a reasonable and fair procedure for the investigation of criminal allegations of our top officials and that the legislation we consider at that time contain the necessary protections against abuses of power. The bill we are introducing today is our best effort at drafting such legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania, and I commend him and Senators Collins and Lieberman for their effort in putting together a bill which we believe represents lessons learned but also represents the feeling that we need to have an independent counsel law, that sooner or later it will again appear that this country needs a way in which to independently investigate allegations of serious wrongdoing against high-level officials. The independent counsel law expires tomorrow. It was enacted in 1978 to establish a nonpartisan process for investigating allegations of criminal conduct by top executive branch officials. The key purpose of the law is to retain public confidence in criminal investigations when the Government investigates its highest officials. The goal is to treat top Federal officials no better and equally important, no worse than a private citizen, and at the end of the investigation, when the judgment is rendered, be it a statement of guilt or innocence, to have the public accept that judgment as a fair and impartial one. Over the years, there have been many successful investigations by independent counsels, most of which resulted in no indictments or prosecutions but resolved outstanding allegations without partisanship or favor. There have been 20 independent counsel investigations in 20 years. Ten of those were closed without indictment; one was closed because of the death of the covered person. Excluding the top five most expensive investigations, the average cost of an independent counsel investigation was under $1 million. And for all but a handful of the cases investigated by independent counsel, the results of the investigations have had the public's confidence. While some say the lesson of Watergate was that the previous system worked, I would refer our colleagues to the testimony of Henry Ruth, who was in charge of the Watergate special prosecution force during the Saturday Night Massacre. Referring to the possibility that the coverup by President Nixon could succeed, Mr. Ruth said, ``It is impossible to describe how thin a thread existed at that time.'' But the independent counsel law, while working most of the time, has also been abused by a few overzealous prosecutors. These prosecutors have made it apparent that before we reauthorize an independent counsel law, it would need to be dramatically revised to prevent a recurrence of the abuses that we have seen. The bill we are introducing today represents the lessons learned, while saving the essential elements of the independent counsel law to preserve public confidence in the prosecution of our top Government officials. Our bill would, among other things, change the law in the following ways. First, it would preclude an independent counsel from broadening an investigation to matters not within the original grant of jurisdiction. Second, it would enforce the requirement that independent counsel follow the established policies of the Department of Justice by giving affected persons the opportunity to challenge questionable independent counsel actions not in line with those policies. Third, it would eliminate the requirement for an independent counsel to submit an impeachment report to the House of Representatives. Fourth, it would prohibit persons with an apparent or real conflict of interest from serving as independent counsel. And, fifth, it would establish a presumptive 2-year term for an independent counsel's investigation. Those are just five of the many major changes that would be made in the independent counsel law. A handful of independent counsels have exceeded the intent of the independent counsel law and have taken the law to places that U.S. Attorneys would not go when investigating private citizens. Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz took 4 years and spent $20 million investigating allegations of graft in the Agriculture Department. Yet his 2-month trial of former Secretary Mike Espy ended in an acquittal on all 30 counts of corruption. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court threw out Smaltz' conviction of Sun-Diamond Growers of California, concluding that Smaltz and a Federal district court had stretched the law to punish behavior that is not a crime. The independent counsel for Samuel Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Reagan, was in existence for almost 10 years, and that included almost 4 years after the independent counsel publicly announced he had closed the case with respect to Mr. Pierce. Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr has singlehandedly done more to undermine public confidence in the independent counsel law than anybody else. Well over half the American people think that Kenneth Starr is partisan and do not trust him to be fair. The editorials expressing concern about Mr. Starr's investigation and judgment are voluminous. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that six of those editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the City of Tecumseh, Michigan, as it celebrates its 175th birthday. Located in Lenawee County, Tecumseh was one of the first three settlements established in 1824 in what was then the Michigan Territory. The settlement's founders, Musgrove Evans, Joseph Brown and Austin Wing, chose its location because of its fertile soil, good supply of timber and its proximity to the Raisin River. They named their new home after the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh, who is said to have held war councils on the site. A growing agricultural community, Tecumseh's first rail line was built in 1838, and train service continued until the late 1970s. Tecumseh was not only a stop on the actual railroad, but was also a stop on the Underground Railroad. Many people in Tecumseh displayed their strong anti-slavery sentiment, and their Quaker beliefs, by providing shelter to slaves escaping from the South. Through the years, the landscape around Tecumseh has changed, as have the ways in which its people make their living. While it was primarily a small agricultural town, today the economy of Tecumseh mostly revolves around industry. In fact, its largest employer, Tecumseh Products, was founded in 1934 and grew to become a Fortune 500 company. Mr. President, Tecumseh is notable for its significance in Michigan's history, but its most dependable asset over the last 175 years has been its people. It is fitting that we recognize Tecumseh's residents as they celebrate the past while looking to build an even better future. I know my colleagues will join me in offering the people of Tecumseh congratulations and best wishes on this important occasion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the 1999 school year came to a close, our Nation was shocked by the incidences of school violence that claimed so many lives. In the aftermath of these tragedies, Americans have become more sensitized to the dangers of guns and the easy access that children have to them. Yet, despite this additional scrutiny by parents, guns continue to claim the lives of young people. Each day, more children are dying, not just in schoolyards, but in the home. They are killed by guns in unintentional shootings. Unintentional shootings are among the leading causes of death for young people. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, each day at least one person under the age of 19 is killed by an unintentional shooting. Unsafe guns are an enormous danger to these young people, who are the victims of 33 percent of all accidental firearm deaths. And in Michigan, people under the age of 19 make up more than 50 percent of the fatalities caused by unintentional shootings. Unintentional shootings almost always occur at home, when a child finds a loaded weapon and while playing with it, shoots himself, a sibling, or a young friend. Some parents try to take precautions against these tragedies by hiding their firearm in a drawer, a closet or even under the mattress. Unfortunately, if it is loaded or without a safety lock, it does not matter where that gun is hidden. It has the potential to kill, and for hundreds of kids each year, it does just that. Daily shootings resulting from the careless storage of guns can easily be prevented. Locking devices for guns are simple to handle and inexpensive, but they must be used. In the Juvenile Justice bill that passed the Senate just a few weeks ago, an amendment was included that would require all sales, deliveries or transfers of handguns to include a secure gun storage or safety device, which was a step in the right direction. But, there was nothing to require that adults, especially with children in the house, use those safety devices. Safe storage laws, or Child Access Prevention, CAP, laws are needed to ensure that adults store loaded guns with safety devices in place and in locations reasonably inaccessible to children. There is no doubt that owning a firearm requires precaution and responsibility, especially when young children are around. CAP laws hold adults criminally responsible if a loaded firearm was left where it could be reasonably accessed by a juvenile, and the juvenile uses or brings into public the adult's firearm without the permission of his parent or guardian. Criminal liability would not apply to adults who have no reasonable expectation of having a juvenile on their premises or if a juvenile obtains a firearm as a result of an unlawful entry. CAP laws simply require adults to use common sense safety measures, such as secure gun storage devices or trigger locks for their firearms. Currently, there are 16 States that have enacted CAP laws. And since the first law took effect 10 years ago, state CAP laws have reduced unintentional deaths of children by firearms on an average of 23 percent. In Florida, just one year after CAP was enacted, unintentional shootings dropped more than 50 percent. And for every state that has enacted a safe storage law, there is compelling evidence that because of CAP, children are safer at home. Despite these successes, there are still an overwhelming number of states, including Michigan, without CAP laws. And until there is awareness that guns should be locked up and stored unloaded, guns will continue to claim the lives of innocent children. Until CAP or safe storage laws are the law of the land, people will continue to learn the hard way that the guns in their home meant for protection will continue to claim the lives of those they are trying to protect.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special person who will be honored on June 28, Frank D. Stella. A ballroom in Cobo Hall in my hometown of Detroit will be filled next Monday with people from all walks of life who have been touched by this remarkable man. In 1946, after serving in World War II, Frank Stella established The F.D. Stella Products Company, a food service and dining equipment design and distribution company, in Detroit. He built his business into one of the most successful of its kind in Michigan, and throughout the years he has used his success to give back to his community. But he is also recognized across the country and worldwide as a leader in the Italian-American community. I will not list all of the business, national, international, civic, fraternal, religious, veterans and social organizations that Frank Stella belongs to--the list is so long, my colleagues might accuse me of trying to filibuster. But I would like to highlight a few of the honors he has received because I believe that they illustrate just how many lives he has touched. In Metro Detroit, Frank has been recognized for his commitment to the community with many awards, including the Special Distinguished Humanitarian Award by the Arab and Chaldean Community Council, the Distinguished Service Award by Detroit Symphony Orchestra Hall, the State of Israel Bonds Award and the Summit Award by the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce. Frank's humanitarian works have also received recognition outside Michigan. He has been invested as a Knight of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and was given Italy's highest decoration by the President and Prime Minister of Italy in 1991. Frank Stella is a man of countless talents and immeasurable dedication. But Frank has something else, too, something he uses periodically to the benefit of the people of Metro Detroit, to wit, clout. While we all know people with clout, Frank's clout is unique. Yes, he has known Presidents, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton. He has met the Pope and Mother Teresa. He counts among his friends famous entertainers like Sophia Loren, John Travolta and Tony Bennett. But Frank Stella may be the only individual in the United States who could convince the ``Three Tenors,'' Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras to make their only U.S. concert appearance this year (and one of only three worldwide) at Tiger Stadium in Detroit on July 17. This concert will not only be the rarest of treats for Metro Detroit music lovers, but it will also raise a significant amount of money for the Michigan Opera Theatre's $25 million capital campaign. Mr. President, Frank Stella wears many hats, including those of a businessman, a humanitarian, a community leader and a father. But for those in attendance at Cobo Hall next Monday night, the most important hat that Frank wears is that of friend. The invitation to the gala encourages people to ``Please be Frank with us.'' But, as everyone knows, there is only one Frank Stella. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Frank on his years of success in so many arenas, and in thanking him for the truly remarkable contributions he has made to our country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of legislation to repeal Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility of 1996, I am pleased that this bill contains language to prevent traffic delays at the Canadian border. Section 110, which was scheduled to go into effect on September 30, 1998, would have required the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to document every alien's arrival in and departure from the United States through an automated entry-exit control system. The Omnibus appropriations act for FY1999 included a compromise provision I cosponsored to delay Section 110 for 30 months. I stated then that Section 110 should not be just delayed, but repealed, because the cost of any such entry-exit system would far exceed its benefits. The vote today replaces the requirements of Section 110 with a feasibility study to determine whether any such system could be developed without increasing congestion or border crossing delays. Section 110, if applied to Canadian nationals would place an unnecessary burden on the hundreds of thousands of motorists who cross the border daily. In 1996, over 116 million U.S. and Canadian border crossers traveled by land to the United States. Instituting a check for each one of these border crossers would create enormous delays at the 250 points of entry, and would have an especially damaging impact on the businesses, trade, and tourism in Michigan and other northern border states. U.S. trade with Canada, our largest trading partner, generates approximately $1 billion of commerce and tourism daily. Any loss of this revenue would be devastating to my State. This provision to repeal the Section 110 requirements at land border and sea ports is vital for Michigan communities and businesses, and I am very pleased that the Senate is addressing this important issue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 975 in order to bring this issue to the floor. That is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to insure a debate on how to address the steel import crisis in a timely manner. The motion to proceed isn't the end point. It is not final passage. Only if the motion to proceed is adopted can we debate how to act effectively and legally to avoid the kind of surges in steel imports which have illegally impacted our steel industry.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I would like to address a question to the chairman of the committee to see if he would be willing to consider this question. It has to do with a bill which the good Senator from Delaware introduced to modify section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 in order to strengthen the utility of that section. I am wondering whether or not on this bill, which was ordered reported, I understand, by the Finance Committee last Wednesday--it is the chairman's intention to press for Senate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor a legendary figure in the civil rights movement in Michigan, Dr. Lionel Swan. Dr. Swan died last Wednesday at the age of 93, leaving behind a reputation as an extraordinarily effective leader in the struggle for civil rights. Dr. Swan was a living example of the great things that can be accomplished when you combine determination, courage and dignity. Dr. Swan put himself through college and medical school by working during the day. He often related a story of an incident which strengthened his resolve to continue on this hard path to his goal of becoming a doctor. One day, a white man called Dr. Swan ``boy'' and threw a cigarette butt on a floor he had just finished mopping. Dr. Swan is said to have responded, ``Mister, I want to thank you. I've been debating whether I should leave this job for college and you just convinced me I've got to do it so the next time I see somebody like you, he can't call me boy.'' Dr. Swan was able to ignore ugly slights and concentrate on what is most important in life. Dr. Swan went on to graduate from Howard University Medical School and practice medicine in Detroit. He was elected President of the National Medical Association and the Detroit Medical Society, where he led the effort to allow African-American physicians to practice medicine at the former Harper and Grace hospitals. Dr. Swan was also a longtime, active member of the NAACP, helping found the Detroit NAACP's Freedom Fund Dinner which raises money annually for its many worthwhile goals and is one of the largest gatherings in the country. Mr. President, Dr. Swan was always firm in principle and gentle in demeanor. He let his actions serve as an example to others in the fight for equality and civil rights. I was a great personal fan of his. I know my Senate colleagues join me in honoring Dr. Swan on his life's many outstanding achievements.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we in the United States have become known around the world for providing what can only be called the gold standards of health care. People come to the United States from all over the world to receive our high-quality health care. Yet I find that too many of my constituents are not receiving this world-renowned health care. Due to current practices in the managed care area, too many HMOs are denying critically needed care to too many of their beneficiaries. For instance, in Detroit, I met with Donald Anderson, a quadriplegic who is in a wheelchair. When he changed jobs, he also changed health care providers. Donald told me that his new provider would not cover a rolling commode wheelchair for him after the wheel broke on the one he owned, even though his doctor classified the wheelchair as a medical necessity. The HMO told him that the chair, which he uses to take showers, is considered a luxury item. His physician intervened and tried to get Donald a rolling commode but was repeatedly denied. In Detroit, I also met with Amaka Onumono, who had been recovering from injuries sustained when a man dumped hot grease on her and set part of her home on fire. She spoke about gaps in service because she needed to get a referral from her primary care physician after every 12 visits to her occupational therapist. ``Every time it comes time to make an appointment, there is a hassle,'' her mother Denise Avery said. In Lansing, I spoke with Dr. William Weil, a Michigan State University pediatrician, who said that some families whose children have chronic illnesses frequently have trouble getting HMOs to approve pediatric subspecialists, especially if none is located in the immediate community. ``In many HMOs, there is a tendency to use neurologists and orthopedists who specialize only in the care of adults,'' Dr. Weil told me. In Midland, MI, I spoke with Dr. James Bicknell, head of the emergency room at Mid Michigan Medical Center. He told me that problems sometimes occur when managed care personnel, by telephone, tried to screen people out of the emergency room. Dr. Bicknell said that ``managed care companies should be held accountable if patients are harmed because companies deny care.'' Stories such as these necessitate reforming the managed care area, which is why passage of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights is so crucial. Let's take the previous examples and apply the Patients' Bill of Rights--a strong one--to see what would have happened to these people had that legislation been enacted. Donald Anderson would have received a rolling commode, since his doctor determined it was medically necessary. A strong Patients' Bill of Rights allows the physician, not the insurance company, to decide what prescriptions and equipment are medically necessary. Amaka Onumono, the burn victim, would not have had to get a new referral every time she needed to see a specialist under a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. Our bill would allow the patient with a chronic health problem to have a standing referral to see such a specialist. The patients of Dr. William Weil, the MSU pediatrician, would not have been denied access to pediatric specialists. The strong Patients' Bill of Rights specifically maintains that an individual should have access to a specialist, including, in the case of a child, the appropriate pediatric expertise. In the case of Dr. James Bicknell, our Patients' Bill of Rights mandates that all patients receive emergency treatment if a prudent layperson considers the patient's condition to be ``an emergency medical condition.'' So our health care programs, our strong Patients' Bill of Rights, would hold health plans accountable for the decisions they make. I have heard similar stories all over my home State of Michigan. While most HMOs do a good job of providing quality health care while managing costs, too many put money before good medicine. A good, strong, national Patients' Bill of Rights would establish a Federal framework that would provide very high quality assurance for patients all over the country. There is overwhelming support in the public for managed care reform. That would include, necessarily, the following patient protections: First, ensure that treatment decisions are made by a patient's doctor, not a bureaucrat at an insurance company. Second, hold managed care plans accountable when their decisions to withhold or limit care injure patients. Third, ensure that patients undergoing treatment can continue to see the same health care provider if their provider leaves the plan or their employer changes plans. Fourth, allow patients to see an outside specialist at no additional cost whenever the specialist in their plan can't meet their needs. Fifth, require that insurance companies pay for emergency services if a reasonable person would consider the situation to be an emergency. Sixth, promote access to clinical trials that may save time. The idea of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights is not a radical notion. Doctors, for instance, are strongly in favor of this. Doctors who receive years of training and specialization are too often now being told by managed care companies they cannot provide the care that they deem to be appropriate. When doctors are no longer making the decisions they were trained to make, something is wrong. What is wrong is that too many HMOs are not providing the services which the American public has a right to expect. The way to right this is to adopt a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. I hope the Senate will take this real-life issue up promptly, resolve it, and adopt a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week, Vice President Gore released a new study focusing on the connection between young adults and gun crimes. This report, jointly prepared by the Departments of Treasury and Justice, documents an alarmingly high rate of gun violence among 18 to 20 year olds. The report shows that while 18, 19, and 20 years olds make up only 4 percent of the U.S. population, they commit an astounding 24 percent of gun murders in our country. In addition, the report shows that 18 year olds commit 35 percent more gun murders than 21 year olds; double the gun murders of 24 year olds; triple the gun murders of 28 year olds; and four times the gun murders of 30 year olds. There are several loopholes in our current firearms laws that permit young people access to handguns and other deadly weapons. We must close those loopholes, especially for the 18 to 20 year olds, who contribute to such a high percentage of gun crimes. One of those loopholes allows 18 to 20 year olds, minors, to purchase handguns from unlicensed dealers, private collectors or friends, even though it would be illegal for them to purchase the same handgun from a federally licensed dealer. There are also additional loopholes in federal law that permit 18 to 20 year olds to purchase semiautomatic weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices from anyone willing to sell them. These weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis, and the 50 rounds per minute clips that accompany them, are not the type of weapons needed for hunting, they are the type needed for killing, and that is what they are too often used for. There is strong precedent for imposing minimum age requirements for engaging in dangerous activities. Congress and the states worked together in the past to minimize public safety concerns by ensuring that states raised their legal drinking ages to 21. This was in response to evidence that young adults were involved in proportionately far more driving accidents while intoxicated. Increasing the age requirement for drinking alcohol, reduced automobile accidents dramatically. And, in the first year after Michigan raised its drinking age from 18 to 21, there was a 21 percent decline in alcohol related deaths among drivers age 18 to 20. Most recently, a report to be released today by a national commission studying the impact of gambling will apparently recommend that the minimum age for all forms of gambling be raised to 21. Although currently most casinos require gamblers to be 21, other forms of gambling, such as state lotteries have an age requirement of 18. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission contends that there should be tighter restrictions on state lotteries and other forms of betting because of the dangers and risks of excessive gambling. Surely if there are clear and compelling reasons to prevent young people from drinking and gambling, there are even better reasons, as documented by the Gore report, to prevent 18, 19 and 20 year olds from owning an assault weapon or a handgun. I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Schumer, S. 891, that would prohibit the sale or transfer of these weapons to young adults as well as prohibit possession of these weapons by those under 21, while maintaining exemptions under current law. In my judgment, it is critical that Congress act quickly to close these loopholes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Joe Beyrle, a World War II veteran and long-time friend from Norton Shores, Michigan. Joe Beyrle's service during the war was truly extraordinary. As an eighteen-year-old in 1942, Joe Beyrle enlisted in the Army, later volunteering for the parachute infantry. Joe quickly distinguished himself as a member of the 101st Airborne Division stationed in England. Early in his service Joe was twice chosen to make dangerous jumps into Nazi-occupied France while fitted with bandoliers filled with gold for the French Resistance. Joe's last jump into France was on the night before D-Day with the objective of destroying two wooden bridges behind Utah Beach. However, while on his way to accomplish this mission, Joe was captured by the Germans. On June 10, 1944, the parents of Joe Beryle received a letter from the United States Government informing them that their son had perished while serving his country in France. On September 17, 1944, family and friends held a funeral mass for Joe at St. Joseph's Church in Muskegon, Michigan. However, Joe was still alive and being held in a POW camp. A dead German soldier wearing an American uniform and Joe's dog tags had been mistakenly identified as Joe. Joe was eventually able to escape from his captors and later joined a Russian tank unit to continue the fight against the Germans. Joe fought with the Russians until an injury forced him to be sent to a Moscow hospital. When he finally regained his strength, Joe went to the American Embassy in Moscow and was eventually sent back to the United States. On September 14, 1946, almost two years after the funeral mass in his honor, Joe Beyrle married his wife, JoAnne, in the very same church. I ask to have printed in the Congressional Record an article which appeared recently in the Detroit Free Press regarding Joe Beyrle. The article highlights in greater detail the extraordinary experience of Joe Beryle during World War II. I know my Senate Colleagues will join me in honoring Joe Beyrle on his tremendous sacrifice and service to our nation. The article follows: World War II Vet Holds on to a Special Appreciation of Life (By Ron Dzwonkowski) Memorial Day has to be a little strange for Joe Beyrle, even after all these years. He pays tribute to the nation's war dead knowing that, for a time, he was among them. Even had a funeral with full honors. ``Oh, what parents went through,'' says Beyrle, (pronounced buy early.) ``My mother would never talk about it. My dad wouldn't at first. But I finally talked to him at some length. The emotions . . . well, it was quite a talk.'' Beyrle, who will turn 76 this summer and lives in Norton Shores, south of Muskegon, was among the hundreds of thousands of young Americans who enlisted in the Armed Forces to fight World War II. A strapping 18-year-old, he passed up a scholarship to the University of Notre Dame and volunteered in June 1942 for what was then called the parachute infantry. By September of '43, Beyrle was in England with the 101st Airborne Division. His commanders must have seen something of the rough-and- ready in the young man from western Michigan, for Beyrle was twice chosen to parachute into Nazi-occupied France wearing bandoliers laden with gold for the French Resistance. After each jump, he had to hide for more than a week until he could be returned to his unit in England. Then came D-Day. Beyrle's unit jumped into France on the night before the invasion, assigned to disrupt Nazi defenses for the huge frontal assault. The going was rough. Beyrle saw several planes full of his comrades go down in flames before he hit the silk from 400 feet up, landing on the roof of a church. Under fire from the steeple, he slid down into a cemetery and set out for his demolition objective, two wooden bridges behind Utah Beach. Beyrle never made it. He was on the loose for about 20 hours while the battle raged on the beaches, and he did manage to blow up a power station and some trucks, slash the tires on the other Nazi vehicles and lob some grenades into clusters of Hitler's finest. But then he crawled over a hedgerow, fell into a German machine gun nest and was captured. What followed was a long ordeal of brutality and terror as the Germans herded the American POWs inland while being hammered by Allied bombs and artillery. Beyrle was hit by shrapnel, but had to shake it off so he could apply tourniquets to two men whose legs were blown off. He escaped once for about 16 hours, but ran back into a German patrol. Somewhere in all this chaos, Beyrle lost his dog tags, those little metal necklaces that identify military personnel. They ended up around the neck of a German soldier who was killed in France on June 10, wearing an American uniform, probably an infiltrator. In early September, the dreaded telegram arrived for Beyrle's parents in Muskegon, the one that includes the nation's ``deep sympathy for your loss.'' The body believed to be Joe Beyrle was buried in France under a grave marker bearing his name. A funeral mass was held on Sept. 17, 1994, at St. Joseph's Church in Muskegon. Beyrle's name was inscribed on a plaque honoring the community's war dead. Joe Beyrle, meantime, was being hauled by train all over Europe, locked in about a half-dozen POW camps, beaten, interrogated and nearly starved. But he never quit trying to escape, and finally managed it in January 1945, as the Nazi war machine was starting to crumble under the onslaught of Americans on the west and Russians from the east. Beyrle hooked up with a Russian tank unit and fought with them for a month before he was wounded and shipped to a hospital outside Moscow. When he was able, Beyrle made his way to the U.S. embassy in the Russian capital, but he had a terrible time convincing officials of his identity, especially since he was listed as dead. He was actually arrested and grew so frustrated that he jumped one of his guards in an attempt to escape. Fingerprints finally proved that Joe Beyrle was alive and well. The next telegram to Muskegon carried a much happier message. On Sept. 14, 1946, Joe Beyrle married his wife, JoAnne, in the same church where his funeral mass was held two years earlier. The same priest presided at both. Almost 53 years later, JoAnne says with a smile that her husband's war stories ``get better every year.'' This weekend, Beyrle will rejoin the 101st for ceremonies honoring its war dead at Arlington National Cemetery. Then he's off to Europe to walk once again over the ground where he fought and bled for freedom. He will even visit the grave that for months was thought to hold his body. ``Some of them aren't's even sure what war I'm talking about,'' he said. ``They really don't understand that I felt it was my duty to volunteer, and what went on and what it was like. I tell them that if it wasn't for what we did, they would all be marching the goose-step today, and the first question is, `what's the goose-step?' ``I grew up real fast. We all had to,'' Beyrle said. ``You just learn to believe that somebody up there is looking out for you. . . . I came home with such an appreciation of life, and I don't think I've ever lost it.'' He came home with a handful of medals, too, but doesn't consider himself a hero. ``There were 200 guys in my unit that jumped into Normandy, and 50 or 60 were killed in action right there, maybe 40 were wounded; five or six were captured,'' Beryle says. ``I'm just one of the lucky ones. The heroes are the guys who didn't make it back.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the managers have accepted the amendment that I introduced along with Senators DeWine, Voinovich, Moynihan and Akaka, adding funds to help combat zebra mussels and other invasive species which infest U.S. waterways. The funds provided will allow the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to meet its responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 to research, develop and demonstrate environmentally sound techniques for managing and removing aquatic nuisance species that threaten public infrastructure in U.S. waters. The Corps' efforts complement the work of other agencies to limit the introduction and spread of new species, providing a desperately needed aquatic invasive species control program. Mr. President, Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes degrade and disrupt the ecosystem; they endanger other indigenous species, either by consuming their food supply or smothering them, and zebra mussels cause grave economic impacts as they damage public infrastructure. Similar nonindigenous species infestations harm virtually every U.S. waterway and coastal area. Over the years, legislation to prevent and control these invasive species has received strong bipartisan, multi-regional support as a testimony to the serious threat they pose. The Committee bill includes some other important items for Michigan and the Great Lakes. These include: $400,000 for preconstruction, engineering and designing improvements to the locks in Sault Ste. Marie. $1.7 million to repair the north and south piers and revetments at Pentwater Harbor. $100,000 to complete a study on Environmental Dredging in Detroit River. $250,000 for corrections to deficiencies associated with the Clinton River Spillway. $100,000 to complete seawall construction, dredging and other work associated with the establishment of the Robert V. Annis Water Resource Institute at Grand Valley State University. $200,000 for planning and design of sea lamprey barriers at sites throughout the Great Lakes basin. As my colleagues may know, the sea lamprey is a devastating invasive species that has plagued the Great Lakes since it first appeared and these barriers play an important role in preventing this species spread and population growth. Funding for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) Mr. President, on balance, this is a good bill, despite the budget constraints that the managers faced in putting it together.