Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am reassured to hear such a strong commitment from my colleague from Oklahoma to achieve a 95-percent minimum rate of return for all States in the long-term highway reauthorization bill. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the chairman to achieve this goal and in the fight for true donor State equity.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the Detroit Shock on their victory of the Women's National Basketball Association, WNBA, Championship. Last week, the Detroit Shock defeated the two-time defending WNBA champion Los Angeles Sparks, 83-78. The Detroit Shock victory is the first professional basketball championship for the city of Detroit since the Detroit Pistons won back-to-back championships in 1988 and 1989. The Detroit Shock's exceptional season broke several WNBA records. I am proud to say that the Shock is the first team in American professional sports since 1890 to go from the worst in their league to the best the following year. The Detroit Shock finished the year with the best record in the league at 25-9. Also, Game 3 of the finals was the highest scoring WNBA finals game in the history of the league, as well as the highest attended game in the league's 7-year history. The Palace of Auburn Hills hosted the sellout crowd of 22,076 fans. In the final game of the best of three series, Ruth Riley, the 6-foot 5-inch center for the Shock, dominated the court. She scored a career- high 27 points and was named the final's Most Valuable Player. Deanna Nolan from Flint, MI scored 17 points, including a three-point shot with less than a minute left, giving the Shock a 75-73 lead. Swin Cash, the Shock's starting forward, added 13 points, 12 rebounds, and nine assists. The league's rebounds leader and Rookie of the Year, Cheryl Ford, contributed 10 points and 12 rebounds for the Shock. The WNBA Champions were led by their head coach, Bill Laimbeer, himself an instrumental player in the Detroit Pistons' Championship. The finishing touch was added to the season when Coach Laimbeer was named the Coach of the Year. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick declared September 18, 2003 as Detroit Shock Day and the Palace of Auburn Hills has officially changed its address to Three Championship Drive. I am pleased to join Senator Stabenow and my colleagues in the Senate in offering my heartiest congratulations to the Detroit Shock as the players, coaches, staff, and fans celebrate their first Women's National Basketball Association Championship. I look forward to another successful season next year. And, we in Detroit hope that the Shock's worst-to-first season will serve as an inspiration to the Detroit Tigers next year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Homeland Security appropriations conference report today because this funding is vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us. I am disappointed that the conference committee rejected additional funding for first responders, port security grants, aviation security, additional Customs inspectors at our borders and other protective measures. At a time when homeland security should be a top priority, we should not be underfunding these programs. In addition to inadequate funding, the grant formula that is used to distribute funding under the Office of Domestic Preparedness State Homeland Security Grant Program is inequitable and needs to be changed. This program distributes funds using a minimum State funding formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of the funds to be divided equally among the States, regardless of need. Many Federal grant programs provide a minimum State funding level to ensure funds reach all areas of the country. But the State minimum formula in this Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which is taken from the USA Patriot Act and sets aside 0.75 percent of the total funds as a base for each State, is unusually high and therefore inequitable. I will continue to work to change this formula so that funding is allocated in an equitable and reasonable manner. I am also disappointed that this bill does not sufficiently address a problem known as ``corporate inversions.'' As young men and women are putting their lives on the line for us and our country, some corporations have put profits before patriotism by pretending to reincorporate in Bermuda or some other offshore tax haven to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. This process is called corporate inversion. It is unfair, it is founded on a deception, it mistreats the average American taxpayer, and it undercuts U.S. corporations that do pay their taxes. A company simply set up a shell headquarters in a tax haven, while all the benefits of living in America remain, all the benefits we would hope to provide in this bill--for instance, protection, homeland security, police, fire, port security. They take advantage of all the other services which are provided to these particular corporations. But because a shell headquarters has been opened up for a few of these corporations in Bermuda, they have avoided paying taxes. I am disappointed that the conferees chose to allow a special benefit to these unpatriotic companies to continue to exist. Back in July, when this body debated the bill before us, the Senate adopted the amendment I offered with Senator Reid that disqualified these unpatriotic companies from competing for homeland security contracts. Unfortunately, the conference committee dropped this amendment from the bill, so those who have engaged in these so-called inversion transactions in past years can still enter into homeland security contracts. They continue to use our roads and our law enforcement, our education system. They use our free-trade laws. But then they avoid paying taxes by opening up a post office box and a computer in a tax haven. Inversions are unfair to the taxpayers who are left holding the bag and unfair to the U.S. companies that are doing the right thing by not inverting but who nevertheless are at a competitive disadvantage because of these sham moves. Those that engaged in these specious inversion transaction in past years can still enter into homeland security contracts--the current prohibition in the law only applies to future inverters, not those that did so previously. The competitive advantage these inverters enjoy vis-a-vis every other U.S. company, therefore remains undisturbed. Senator Reid and I, along with other of our colleagues, have introduced a bill that would deny tax benefits to U.S. companies that invert by continuing to treat them as U.S. companies for tax purposes. This bill would not only level the playing field between these companies and their U.S. competitors, it would also save other U.S. taxpayers from having to make up an estimated $4.9 billion in lost tax revenues over the next 10 years. I hope that we will soon have an opportunity to act on this legislation in order to address this problem.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to recognize Tony Autore for his outstanding commitment to community service in my home State of Michigan. On September 26, 2003, the Chippewa-Luce-Mackinac Community Action Agency will honor Tony for his exemplary service to the Eastern Upper Peninsula and to the Community Action Agency. Tony began his service to the community in 1952, when he entered the United States Army and served until he was honorably discharged in 1954. After his two years in the Army, Tony moved to Cedarville, MI, with his wife Ethel and began a successful local business. Tony's service continued as he became a member of the Les Cheneaux Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber recently hosted the Michigan Outdoor Writers' winter and summer conventions, bringing over 300 writers to the area to discuss and celebrate the conservation and preservation of the state of Michigan's natural resources. Tony has also served his community on the Clark Township volunteer fire department and the Les Cheneaux Community Foundation Board and was instrumental in establishing a Boy Scout Troop in the area. Along with these activities, Tony has devoted his time and talent improving his community for others as a member of the planning commission, the Mackinac County Housing Commission, and the economic development corporation. Tony has also been involved with other local organizations. He is a member of the Lions Club, the Knights of Columbus, and the Christopher Columbus Association. For the past 18 years, Tony has served on the Board of the Chippewa- Luce-Mackinac Community Action Agency. He is currently the treasurer of the group, which strives to address poverty by helping to enable people to become self-sufficient members of society. The counsel and advice he has given the Agency Director and staff have been invaluable. During his time with the agency he has helped provide a truck and driver free of charge to help with the periodic distribution of food commodities in the area. Additionally, through his ties to the local community, Tony helped the agency secure use of the town hall for senior congregate meals. Tony also assisted the Community Action Agency in the development of a Head Start Center in Cedarville. Appropriately, this center will be dedicated as the ``Autore Center, Community Action Agency Head Start''. I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate will join with me in thanking Tony Autore for his outstanding service to his community and congratulate him on receiving this high honor from the Community Action Agency.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to an exceptional educator from my home State of Michigan. On September 27th, Robert G. MacEachran will retire after 16 years as Superintendent of the Suttons Bay Public Schools. Mr. MacEachran's dedication to his students and lifelong commitment to maintaining a standard of excellence for the Suttons Bay Public Schools has made a great difference in the lives of many residents of northern Michigan. Mr. MacEachran began his work in public education as a junior high school math teacher in the Battle Creek School District. He then moved to the East Grand Rapids School District and taught high school math for several years. With many years of teaching under his belt, he decided to pursue his longtime goal of becoming an educational administrator to ensure that schools maintained an environment that encouraged learning by stimulating the minds of all students. Mr. MacEachran moved to the Comstock Park Schools where he served as Assistant Principal, Athletic Director, and Director of Community Service. After 22 years of service as an educator, Mr. MacEachran moved to northern Michigan and took the position of Superintendent for the Suttons Bay public school system. In this position, he has stressed the importance of using the newest technology to ensure that students have all the resources needed to enrich their learning experience. Mr. MacEachran has also made great strides in developing new relationships between private and public schools. He developed a partnership between the local Montessori school and Suttons Bay Public Schools that incorporates the Montessori educators and their techniques into the public school curriculum. He was also pivotal in the construction of a new high school. This new building allowed all K-12 grades to be moved to new classrooms. The dedication and innovation that Robert MacEachran has brought to the Suttons Bay Public Schools during his 16-year tenure as Superintendent and 38 years within the Michigan public school community is exceptional. He has demonstrated unwavering support for the education of Michigan's youth. The legacy that he has left within the Suttons Bay public school system will endure after his retirement. Future generations will greatly benefit from his commitment to the education and development of all children. I am confident my colleagues will join me in offering our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Robert G. MacEachran and in wishing him well in his retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1750 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. This amendment establishes a cost-effective program to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I understand it has been cleared by both of the managers. Since late 2001 the Department of Energy--DOE--has been steadily adding oil to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, in order to fill the reserve to its maximum capacity of 700 million barrels. In late 2001, the reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil; today holds nearly 620 million barrels. DOE anticipates that at the current fill rate it will reach its goal of 700 million barrels sometime in 2005. Since early 2002, DOE has been acquiring oil for the SPR without regard to the price of oil. Prior to that time, DOE sought to acquire more oil when the price of oil was low, and less oil when the price of oil was high. In early 2002, however, DOE abandoned this cost-based approach and instead adopted the current approach, which does not consider cost when buying oil for the SPR. Since over this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight, this cost-blind approach has increased the costs of the program to the taxpayer and, of great significance, put further pressure on tight oil markets, thereby helping boost oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses. The bipartisan amendment Senator Collins and I are offering today is simple. It would encourage DOE to consider the price and supply of oil when buying oil for the SPR. It would direct DOE to minimize the program's cost to the taxpayer while maximizing our energy security. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations spend a year and a half looking at oil markets and the SPR. In March of this year my staff on the subcommittee published the repot of the investigation. In summary our investigation found: In 2002, DOE began to fill the SPR without regard to the price of oil. Filling the SPR in tight market increased U.S. oil prices and hurt U.S. consumers. Filling the SPR regardless of oil prices increased taxpayer costs. Despite its high cost, filling the SPR [in 2002] did not increase overall U.S. oil supplies. The March report also warned that the deliveries that were then scheduled for later in 2003 would drive oil prices higher because prices were high and inventories were low. Unfortunately, this prediction turned out to be accurate. Our Report recommended: DOE should defer all SPR deliveries . . . until near-term crude oil prices fall and U.S. commercial inventories increase. DOE should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the previous SPR fill policy compared to the current policy. DOE should restore its SPR business procedures allowing deferrals of oil deliveries to the SPR when crude oil prices are high or commercial crude oil supplies are tight. Both Houses of Congress support the goal of filling the SPR to its capacity. I support this goal, too. This amendment seeks to further this goal and our national energy security at least cost to the taxpayers. For many years the SPR program followed the types of procedures that DOE has recently abandoned. The SPR program office itself has recommended the DOE return to using these market-based procedures. Under the amendment DOE would continue to have the discretion to determine when to buy oil for the SPR, and under which procedures, but DOE would be encouraged to use that discretion in a way to minimize costs while maximizing national energy security. Any successful businessperson knows the saying, ``Buy low, sell high.'' This is as true for oil as it is for pork bellies and stocks. It is as true for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as it is for any business involving a commodity. Indeed, in a recent presentation to other countries on how to create and manage a strategic reserve, DOE itself states: ``The Key To A Successful Strategic Reserve Is Cost Control.'' DOE identifies the major cost elements of a strategic reserve as capital costs, maintenance costs, and oil acquisition costs. Once constructed, the capital costs and the maintenance costs are largely fixed. The main variable cost, therefore, is the cost of acquiring oil for the SPR. DOE itself identifies for other countries the ``Lessons Learned to Control Oil Acquisition Costs'' as follows: Let the markets determine your buying pattern. Buy in weak markets. Delay deliveries during strong markets. Use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets. Prior to early 2002 DOE followed this sensible strategy when acquiring oil for the SPR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from this DOE presentation to other countries be entered into the record.

Mr. LEVIN. Part of this strategy--allowing deliveries to be deferred when prices were high and supplies tight--was spelled out in the ``Business Procedures'' for the SPR program issued by DOE in January 2002. The Business Procedures spell out how scheduled deliveries of oil to the SPR can be deferred. Generally, companies will ask for a deferral when the market is tight so they can meet their supply commitments to refiners who have an immediate need for the oil. DOE's procedures provided that a company could be granted a deferral in return for additional barrels of oil to be delivered at the later date. DOE calculated the amount of additional oil that would be delivered by comparing the market prices at the time of delivery was originally scheduled and at the time of the deferred delivery. DOE's own documents state that deferrals of oil scheduled to be delivered in 2001 provided an additional 3\1/2\ million barrels of oil for the SPR at no additional cost to the Government. Deferrals of deliveries scheduled for 1999 and 2000 had added another 3\1/2\ million barrels. At an average cost of $25 per barrel, these deferrals added a total of 7 million barrels of oil to the Reserve, worth about $175 million, for no cost to the taxpayer. The SPR program projected: The potential for savings to the Treasury if we continue to follow this business model until the Reserve is full is additional hundreds of millions of dollars. But in April 2002, DOE stopped allowing deferrals of scheduled deliveries. Instead, DOE began to buy oil for the SPR without regard to the cost of oil or the supply of oil, and refused requests for deferrals. DOE has not explained the reason for abandoning its previous policy. In addition to losing the benefits from deferrals, both in terms of oil gained and dollars saved, the abandonment of the previous policy is costing taxpayers because DOE has been paying top dollar for the oil placed into the SPR. Oil acquired for the SPR at $35 per barrel costs the taxpayers $10 more per barrel than oil acquired at $25 per barrel. Even more modest savings per barrel add up to large savings over the course of the program. In 2002, DOE's SPR program calculated: If the SPR can average down the price of oil it injects in the Reserve by $1 per barrel between now and 2005, the U.S. Treasury will be better off by $125 million, a direct benefit. But in these times of high gas prices, the DOE shift has another highly negative effect. Filling up the SPR affects the price of oil and gasoline. In a tight market, filling the SPR reduces the amount of oil in private sector inventories, which, because it reduces available supply, will then lead to increases in the price of oil and petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and home heating oil. When prices are high and the market is tight, refiners will use up the oil in their inventories rather than purchase new oil in an expensive market, and wait for prices to fall before buying more oil. In a tight market, therefore, the additional demand for oil created by the SPR program will lead companies to take even more oil out of their own inventories to fill Government needs. In a tight market, the net result of the SPR program will not be any overall increase in domestic oil supplies, since the amounts of oil added to the SPR will come at the expense of oil in private sector inventories. These private commercial inventories are thereby reduced as a result of filling the SPR. Oil prices are directly related to the supply of oil. When supplies are plentiful, prices fall. When supplies are scarce, prices rise. The supply of oil is determined by the amount of oil produced in oil wells around the world and the amount of oil in storage. As either the amount of oil produced or the amount of oil in storage decreases, prices will increase. In a tight market, therefore, when supplies are scarce, filling the SPR will lead both to a decrease in private sector inventories and a corresponding increase in the price of oil. The Department of Energy's own documents explain this effect as follows: If we look at the SPR from the perspective of daily supply and demand, the SPR fill rates are inconsequential. The fill rate is 100-170,000 barrels per day compared to world production and consumption of 75 million barrels per day. However, when OPEC countries are determined to maintain discipline in their export quotas, the cumulative impact of filling the SPR becomes more significant when compared to U.S. and Atlantic basin inventories. Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, the OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices. Oil companies doing business with the SPR program supported DOE's business procedures in place prior to the spring of last year. These procedures afforded the contractors the flexibility to re-schedule deliveries to the SPR in accordance with market conditions. In exchange for providing the oil companies with this flexibility, the U.S. government was able to obtain additional barrels of oil for the SPR at no additional cost to the taxpayer. This enabled the Reserve to be filled faster and at less cost than if contractors were not allowed to reschedule their deliveries. These procedures were a win-win for taxpayers and the SPR. And, of course, any increase in the price of oil will soon lead to an increase in the price of the various petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, and jet fuel. Hence, the SPR program affects price of basic oil products for a wide variety of American consumers and businesses. The amendment I am offering today would encourage DOE to reinstate these ``win-win'' procedures for filling the SPR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent editorial critical of DOE's cost-blind approach to filling the SPR.

Mr. LEVIN. The editorial, in the Omaha World Herald, dated August 14, reads: In general, we are strong supporters of keeping the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve at or near capacity in case of a national emergency. However, there is such a thing as bad timing. We believe the administration has been making a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 million barrels since the start of May. Commercial U.S. oil stocks have been low for months. Filling the reserve just now puts upward pressure on prices. . . . Washington should back off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists during summer vacation driving time. Under our amendment DOE would retain the complete discretion to determine the pace and schedule for filling the SPR. However, DOE would be required to issue procedures to guide this discretion, and would be required to consider how to maximize our national energy security and minimize costs to the taxpayers while filling the SPR. If implemented properly, such procedures can promote our national energy security, save taxpayers money, and lower oil and gasoline prices for consumers. Exhibit 1 Proceedings of APEC Energy Security Initiative Workshop on Elements of Energy Security Policy in the Context of Petroleum, Amari Watergate Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, September 14-15, 2001 asia-pacific economic cooperation, energy working group, clean fossil energy experts' group Jointly Organized by: Department of Industry, Science and Resource (ISR), Australia; The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ), Japan; Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy (MOCIE), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Energy, Mexico; National Energy Policy Office (NEPO), Thailand; and Department of Energy (DOE), United States. Supported by: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan strategic petroleum reserve APEC Workshop on Energy Security Policy: John Shages. united states policy on responding to oil supply disruptions The policy of the United States regarding oil supply disruptions is to rely on market forces to allocate supply, and to ordinarily supplement supply by the early drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in large volumes and in coordination with our allies and trading partners. critical elements to justify a drawdown A Disruption Event. Evidence of Supply Stress. A Price Spike. the key to a successful strategic reserve is cost control The benefits come with a drawdown--but the number and extent of futures disruptions is unknown. Measuring the degree of damage from a disruption, and the consequent benefits of a petroleum reserve, to an individual economy is an uncertain science. Cost is the easiest aspect to control and has the highest probability of making the Reserve cost beneficial. major cost elements Capital Costs--Including land, facilities, and logistics systems. Maintenance Costs. Oil Acquisition Costs. capital costs Dependent on location. Technology and type of storage facilities. Refer to the 1999 APERC Study supported by conceptual designs and cost estimates from PBKBB, Inc. lessons learned to control oil acquisition costs Let the markets determine your buying pattern. Buy in weak markets. Delay deliveries during strong markets. Use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets. Exhibit 2 [From the Omaha World Herald, Aug. 14, 2003] Oil's Not Well--Filling the Strategic Reserve Is a Good Idea--But Not Right Now. In general, we are strong supporters of keeping the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve at or near capacity in case of a national emergency. However, there is such a thing as bad timing. We believe the administration has been making a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 million barrels since the start of May. Commercial U.S. oil stocks have been low for months. Filling the reserve just now puts upwards pressure on prices. Every motorists sees this at the gasoline pump, where regular-grade gas is hovering around $1.60. Oil has again begun to flow from Iraq's vast fields, which will help somewhat--weeks from now. Meanwhile, the strategic reserve is at 84 percent of capacity. This seems to us a comfortable level. Washington should back off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists during summer vacation driving time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to congratulate Saints Peter and Paul Church for 155 years of dedication and service to the Detroit community. On September 24, 2003, people will be gathering in my hometown of Detroit, MI to celebrate this important achievement. I am also pleased that Michigan's First Gentleman, Dan Mulhern, husband of Governor Jennifer Granholm, will share in the celebration of Saints Peter and Paul's anniversary. Completed and dedicated on June 29, 1848, Saints Peter and Paul Church was originally built as the cathedral for the Catholic Church in Detroit. It is the oldest church building in continuous use in the city. In 1877, Saints Peter and Paul Church was given to the Jesuits to be used as a local center for Jesuit ministry and a church for the University of Detroit, then named Detroit College. Toward the end of the 19th century, working class people, many of them recent immigrants, became a large part of the parish population. As a result, Saints Peter and Paul Church refocused its ministry in response to the changing needs of its congregation. After World War I, the prosperity of the church declined because its neighborhood became more commercial and industrial. In spite of a diminished congregation, loyal community members remained intent on a preserving Saints Peter and Paul Church as a place of worship. A sharp increase in homelessness in the area toward the end of the 20th century strengthened the church's dedication to members of the community in need. Today, Saints Peter and Paul Church remains committed to serving urban Detroit. One of its most important outreach programs is the Warming Center, which serves nearly 100 guests a day. Most of the visitors are people in need. The Warming Center offers its guests a safe haven, a warm meal, hospitality, and an opportunity to engage in mutual reflection and sharing. The center also offers free use of a telephone, laundry facilities, a shower, and clothing. I take great pride in recognizing the commitment of Saints Peter and Paul Church to Detroit throughout its 155-year history. The church attends to the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of the Detroit community. I know my Senate colleagues join me in saluting the ministry of Saints Peter and Paul Church and in wishing the church continued support and success in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last night the Detroit Shock won the Women's National Basketball Association Championship, defeating the two-time defending champion Los Angeles Sparks 83-78. This tremendous accomplishment is all the more special because the Shock rose from the worst record in the league last year to champions this year. Over the course of this year's season, the Shock won a league-best 25 games, a year after losing a league-worst 23 games. The Shock's victory is also the first time in the WNBA's 7-year history that neither Houston nor Los Angeles won the championship. The enthusiasm and support for the Shock by the people of Detroit and Michigan was clearly demonstrated by the fact that last night's game was attended by a WNBA record crowd of over 22,000 people. The Shock completed their incredible run from last to first with the leadership of Coach Bill Laimbeer, finals Most Valuable Player Ruth Riley's career-high 27-point performance, as well as the strong play of Swin Cash, who finished with 13 points, 12 rebounds, and 9 assists. These performances were supported by Deanna Nolan's 17 points, and Rookie of the Year Cheryl Ford's 10 points and 11 rebounds. It was a tremendously exciting game throughout. The Los Angeles Sparks erased a 14-point deficit in the first half, and an 11-point deficit in the second half, and even had a 3-point lead with less than 4 minutes to go. But with less than a minute left, Deanna Nolan, from Flint, MI, secured the Shock's lead when she hit a 3-point shot to give them a 75-73 lead. Then Cheryl Ford hit 2 free throws, and it was a 4- point game with 43 seconds remaining. In the end, the Shock were victorious in what was the highest-scoring WNBA finals game in history. The 2003 WNBA champion Detroit Shock will celebrate its first-ever WNBA championship with fans tonight at The Palace of Auburn Hills. This is Detroit's first professional basketball championship since our Pistons won back-to-back championships in 1988 and 1989. Shock Head Coach Bill Laimbeer was actually cocaptain of those Pistons teams, and in 1988 it was the Los Angeles Lakers--the Los Angeles Sparks' NBA counterparts--that Detroit defeated to win the championship. I know our colleagues will join me and Senator Stabenow in congratulating the Detroit Shock on their championship and looking forward to their drive to repeat next year. Mr. President, it is also my fervent hope that the Shock's worst-to- first season will be an inspiration to the Detroit Tigers next year. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I have the honor of recognizing a great American and Michigander, Marvin ``Sonny'' Eliot. Sonny was born and raised in my hometown of Detroit. He is well known as a popular TV and radio weatherman, with a career spanning 57 years. However, equally as impressive as his broadcasting career is his aviation and military career. Sonny had always wanted to fly planes. While in high school, he commuted across town to take a special aviation course at another school. Sonny did so well on the final exam that he was awarded flying lessons, which led to his pilot's license in 1940. After high school, Sonny attended Wayne State University. Before finishing a degree program, he decided to enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Following his training in the Air Corps, Sonny was shipped to Wendling, England, where he flew B-24's as part of the 392nd Heavy Bomber Group. During World War II, Sonny was shot down over Gotha, Germany on his 16th mission. Subsequently, he was captured by the Nazis and spent 16 months as a Prisoner of War in Germany, 14 of which were in the prison camp Stalag Luft I. Due to his valor and loyalty in the service, Sonny earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal, and Purple Heart. In addition, he received the Presidential Unit Citation with all the members of the 392nd Heavy Bomber Group for carrying out one of the most vital air strikes of the aerial attacks of the war. After returning from Europe in 1945, Sonny continued his studies at Wayne State University where he earned a B.A. in English and an M.A. in Mass Communication and began his career in broadcasting. He has spent almost six decades on Detroit's airwaves with WWJ Radio and Channels 2 and 4 television, best known as a personable and humorous weatherman. In fact, his witty weather reports have been named the nation's best by the National Association of TV Program Executives. Nevertheless, his interest in aviation never faded. While at Channel 4 TV and WWJ, Sonny won numerous news media awards for promotion and public awareness of aviation. In addition, he continues to fly and has accumulated more than 7,500 hours. Sonny holds the rank of colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and was named the Air Force liaison for the 1st Congressional District. In October 2001, as a result of his lifelong commitment to aviation, he was enshrined into the Michigan Aviation Hall of Fame. Currently, Sonny can be heard on WWJ-AM 950 with his easy-to- understand weathercasts. I am pleased to join my colleagues in the Senate in saluting Marvin ``Sonny'' Eliot's lifetime full of contributions to his country and the state of Michigan. I wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week Americans for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March, and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have joined to oppose an amendment included in the House version of the Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations Act that would cripple the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to enforce the Nation's gun safety laws against firearms dealers who supply guns to criminals. The House amendment would prohibit the public release of information related to the importation and production of firearms. This would mean that the only reliable national information available on how many guns are produced in a given year, as well as type, caliber, and manufacturer, would no longer be available to the public. Further, the amendment would prohibit the public release of information related to multiple handgun sales. Under current law, dealers are required to notify the BATFE of the sale of two or more handguns to the same person within 5 business days. Eliminating the public availability of this data would make it more difficult to monitor the activities of reckless gun dealers. In addition, the amendment would prohibit the release of information related to tracing requests on guns used in crimes. The amendment would also prohibit the BATFE from issuing a rule requiring Federal firearm licensees to submit to a physical inventory. A physical inventory recently revealed that a Tacoma, WA gun dealer could not account for the sniper rifle used by the Washington, DC area sniper and more than 200 other guns in his inventory. The amendment would also require the immediate destruction of records of approved firearms purchases and transfers generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The retention of these records has assisted law enforcement officials in trying to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and identifying gun trafficking patterns. This amendment was never the subject of hearings, is not supported by any major law enforcement organizations, is not supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft or Director of the BATFE Bradley Buckles. I support the efforts of Americans for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March, and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to block this amendment. This provision could shield reckless and negligent gun dealers from public scrutiny and weaken the BATFE's oversight and enforcement authority.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stabenow and myself, I congratulate the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra as it celebrates its 75th anniversary. The Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra was founded by Phillip Potts on a chilly autumn evening in 1928. Potts and four musicians gathered in a basement room of a local church, set up their music stands, unpacked and tuned their instruments, and launched into what would become a musical legacy that has touched many in the Michigan community. Today, the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra includes over 150 professional musicians who perform under its auspices. The organization has an active and committed 45-member Board of Directors and a staff of five full-time employees. Each season, the symphony performs nine main stage concerts for 8,000 subscription patrons as well as five matinee concerts for over 1,000 senior citizens and five family-oriented concerts designed to engage family members of all ages. The group's extensive educational series includes four youth concerts, ``Ensembles in the Classroom'' during which orchestra members visit individual classrooms, and a variety of other educational events which enrich the lives of almost 20,000 area students each year. The Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra counts Joseph Maddy, who was also the founder of Michigan's prestigious Interlochen Center for the Arts, as one of its earliest conductors. It has been the orchestra in residence for the Martha Graham Dance Company, the University Musical Society, the Music Paradigm, and Peter Schickele, aka PDQ Bach. Guest artists have included world renowned violinists Jaime Laredo, Catherine Cho, Ilya Kaler, Augustin Hadelich, and Benny Kim; clarinetists Richard Stoltzman and David Shiffrin; and pianists Anton Nel and Vladimir Feltsman. During its 75-year history, the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra has received many honors. It has received awards from the National Endowment for the Arts, including a Millennium Project award for the premiere of a new work for an orchestra. It has also consistently earned top marks from the Michigan Council for the Arts and Cultural Affairs. Furthermore, in 2002 it was recognized by Crain's Detroit Business magazine as one of the area's best-managed nonprofit organizations. In addition, the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra won the Nonprofit Enterprise at Work's Excellence Award for Management in 1997 and 2003. The Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra's repertoire ranges from Baroque to the 21st century and spans musical genres from Bach to Broadway. Each year, the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra has premiered a new work by a young composer through its annual ``Mozart Birthday Bash'' concert series. This year the orchestra is also commissioning a work by internationally known Michigan composer Michael Daughtery. ``Silent Movies'' is a work for the Barton Theater Organ, which is located in the historic Michigan Theater, in celebration of the orchestra's 75th anniversary. The Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra is an integral part of the cultural and economic landscape of Ann Arbor and southeastern Michigan. Senator Stabenow and I would like to congratulate and honor the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra, its Music Director Arie Lipsky, and the hundreds of musicians, board members, and staff who have brought musical gifts to so many over the past 75 years. We know our Senate colleagues will join us in offering our thanks to the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra for enriching our lives and in wishing the organization continued success in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the nation of Ukraine recently celebrated the 12th anniversary of its independence from the former Soviet Union. This milestone, gained after decades under Soviet repression, is a notable achievement that bears witness to humanity's inextinguishable and universal desire for liberty and freedom. Twelve years after its independence, much has been achieved, yet much work remains to be done before Ukraine is able to fulfill its considerable promise and fully join the Euro-Atlantic community of nations that find unity through their commitment to democracy and a steadfast adherence to the rule of law. Yesterday also marked the third anniversary of the disappearance and murder of Ukrainian journalist Georgiy Gongadze. This anniversary casts a pall over Ukrainian society and underscores the problems it faces as it seeks to reform its domestic political situation. The editor of an internet newspaper, Ukrainska Pravda Ukrainian Truth--Gongadze reported widely on corruption within highest circles of Ukrainian society. He was an outspoken critic of corruption, and his decision to create an internet news journal was done in part to avoid some of the censorship and intimidation imposed upon journalists in Ukraine who routinely have their papers seized, presses damaged, and lives threatened by government officials. However, Gongadze's actions did not escape official notice. Nothing done by members of the fourth estate is going unnoticed in a nation that Reporters Without Frontiers ranked 112th in its rating of worldwide media freedom. After Gongadze's disappearance, tapes secretly recorded by Mykola Melnychenko, a former bodyguard for President Leonid Kuchma, documented plans by President Kuchma and other government officials to dispose of Gongadze by a variety of means including ``selling him to the Chechens.'' Since his disappearance 3 years ago, little headway has been made into the investigation of his murder. Ukrainian officials have hindered efforts by the FBI to examine evidence, court documents have been forged and a witness in the case recently died while in police custody. Delays into this investigation and the lack of transparency with which it has been conducted undermine the reputation of Ukraine and hinders its relationship with the United States, the European Union, and NATO. Much has been made of Ukraine's contribution to Operation Iraq Freedom. Currently, a brigade of Ukrainian soldiers are on the ground in Iraq, and this contribution is greatly appreciated. Yet such assistance, coupled with military reform, should not be seen as a quid pro quo for a lack of reform on Ukraine's domestic front. Unification with the Euro-Atlantic community is not merely a geopolitical or bureaucratic decision. Ukraine must continue efforts to develop and implement a responsive and transparent rule-based system of law before it is fully able to from the West. The conduct of the October 2004 Presidential elections in Ukraine will be watched closely by the international community. Free and fair elections, regardless of their final outcome, will be an important step toward Ukraine's rapproachment with the community of nations. This election will be vital not for its outcome, but for the process by which it is conducted. It is my hope that the October 2004 elections will aid Ukraine's transformation from a nation where fear undermines public discourse into a nation where all facets of society can freely engage in the market-place of ideas without fear of recrimination. Only in such a society will we be able to learn the truth surrounding the disappearance and murder of Georgiy Gongadze. His family and the Ukrainian people deserve no less.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Rhode Island for his leadership in this area. It is critically important that we show some constraint--at least in funding of new nuclear weapons and modifications of existing nuclear weapons in order to make them more usable. Appropriating funds, as this bill does, for research on a new nuclear weapon and research on a modification of existing weapons in order to make them more useful moves us in a dangerous new direction which marks a major shift in American policy. It is inconsistent with our longstanding commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to end the nuclear arms race. It undermines our argument to other countries around the world that they should not develop or test nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the bill before us supports this dangerous new direction by putting funds into research of both the new weapon and modification of existing weapons to make them more usable. At least the pending amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island puts an explicit constraint on the expenditure of that money. Why it is so important this language be included is that it makes explicit, before we can move to the developmental stage of these new weapons, there must be an explicit congressional vote. It cannot happen--this next stage, which we hope will never come--if the Reed language is adopted and maintained in conference, and if we were able to maintain similar language in conference in the authorization bill that development of these new weapons and modified weapons, to make them more usable, could not happen without an explicit action on the part of Congress. That is not the current policy that there be an explicit authorization. It is not inconsistent with current policy that there be an explicit authorization before we approve development, but it is not the existing policy. It is critically important that at least if we cannot stop this country from moving in a direction which is so totally inconsistent with what we are urging the rest of the world to do, at a minimum, we go as far as we can in expressing the determination of at least many of us that we move not at all, if possible, before we move that there be a formal vote on the part of Congress. I do not understand how we can argue to other countries, with our heads high, that they should not move in a nuclear direction at the same time we are doing research on new nuclear weapons. We are telling others, do not go down that road. But instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are going to move recklessly down that same road. We are following a policy that we do not tolerate in others. The adoption of the Reed amendment would at least put some brake on the speed at which we are going down that road, and hopefully, before development is reached, before taking the next milestone on that road. Appropriating funds for research in new nuclear weapons begins to take the United States in a dangerous new direction that marks a major shift in American policy, is inconsistent with our longstanding commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to end the nuclear arms race, and undermines our argument to other countries around the world that they should not develop or test nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the bill now on the Senate floor would also support this dangerous new direction. But the pending amendment puts an explicit constraint on it. Current U.S. law bans research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so called low-yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5 kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima, which immediately killed an estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The Bush administration asked that this ban be repealed. If the ban is repealed, the purpose is to make nuclear weapons more usable. As stated by Linton Brooks, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 8, 2003, ``I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum destruction . . . I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable.'' The language approved by a majority of the Armed Services Committee and included in the Senate passed version of the Defense authorization bill would repeal this ban. Without this ban there is no impediment in law to research, development, testing, production, or deployment of new, low yield nuclear weapons. The bill before us would also support the repeal of this ban by appropriating $6 million to begin the research on new low-yield nuclear weapons, or for any other advanced new nuclear weapons concept. The Defense authorization bill authorizes the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue work on a robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP). The Energy and Water bill would appropriate these funds. This effort would modify one of two existing high-yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification are high yield nuclear weapons with yields that are approximately 30 and 70 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Without a requirement that the earth penetrator weapon be authorized by Congress, there is no legal impediment to its development, testing, production, or deployment. At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea's pulling out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, when we are trying to prevent Iran from establishing a nuclear weapons program and when we are spending over a billion dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology, these actions would send a terrible message. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons. But instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road. In short, the United States is following a policy that we do not tolerate in others. President Bush on June 18 stated that the United States will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Similarly in May President Bush, in a joint statement with the President of South Korea, said he would not tolerate a North Korean nuclear weapon. The leaked version of the Nuclear Posture Review identifies both North Korea and Iran as countries against which the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Clearly North Korea is the focus of the concern about hard and deeply buried targets and the desire to pursue the development of an RNEP. At the same time that the United States is actively engaging in talks with North Korea to persuade them to give up their nuclear weapons program and urging the IAEA to ensure that Iran does not pursue a nuclear weapons program, we are beginning the process to develop new nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is taking action to ensure that there is a robust complex to build new nuclear weapons and an accelerated test readiness program to test them. Where is the consistency in our actions? Having undertaken a preemptive war against an alleged imminent threat in the name of counter proliferation, can the United States effectively unite the world against Iran and North Korea's pursuance of nuclear weapons programs when the Bush administration appears to be on the verge of reversing a decades old nuclear policy and pursuing new tactical nuclear weapons? Weapons that, in the words of Linton Brooks, the Administrator of the National Security Administration, ``might be usable.'' The inconsistency of U.S. action was noted in a May 17 editorial in the Economist Magazine: . . . America would dangerously blur the line against nuclear use by anyone. That would make it more likely, not less, that America's own forces would eventually have nuclear weapons used against them too. Mr. Bush has said repeatedly, with reason, that he wants America to rely less on nuclear weapons for its future security, not more. In their determination to leave no weapons avenue unexplored, his advisors are proposing to lead America along a dangerous path. Time the president called a halt. On July 17 of this year the New York Times also commented on the inconsistency between urging others to forego nuclear weapons development at a time when the United States is beginning to put in place all the elements of a new nuclear weapons program. Particularly a program whose goal appears to be to produce nuclear weapons that ``might be usable.'' The July 17 editorial cautioned: Nuclear bombs should not be casually re-engineered for ordinary battlefield use at a time when countries like North Korea, Pakistan and India have added nuclear weapons to their arsenals and a chief objective of U.S. policy is to make sure these weapons are never used. I urge the Bush administration to continue to work to persuade both North Korea and Iran to disavow nuclear weapons programs. Arms control still has a vital role to play. As Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said, in defense of the Nonproliferation Treaty, ``Agreements such as the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, organizations such as the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group--these constitute a global security architecture that has served us satisfactorily and kept us sage.'' As Rose Gottemoeller, a former Assistant Secretary of Energy said: Other countries watch us like a hawk. They are very attentive to what we do in the nuclear arena. This is going to be considered another step in the tectonic shift. I think people abroad will interpret this as part of a really enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to renuclearize. And I think definitely there's going to be an impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the world. Let us slow down and think about the road on which we are about to travel. Senator Reed, Senator Kennedy, and I offer an amendment today to once again preserve Congress's role in any decision to move toward the design, engineering, testing, or deploying of any new nuclear weapon. And equally important, this amendment will require us to stop and think seriously before going down the road toward new nuclear weapons. The amendment would require the Department of Energy to obtain a specific authorization from Congress before the Department could move to phase 3 or beyond in the nuclear weapons development process. Phase 3 is the engineering development phase, the point at which a concept would begin to be a new weapon. The amendment would also apply to this same phase, the engineering development phase, in the process of modifying an existing weapon for a new military requirement. When the Department modifies an existing weapon the engineering development phase is the 6.3 phase. This amendment would apply to the 6.3 phase as well. Language similar to this amendment passed the Senate 95-0 during the consideration of the Defense Authorization Act. There was no disagreement then, and should not be now, that Congress retain a central role in any decision to seek new nuclear weapons. In 1994, Congress determined that the United States did not need to embark on a new nuclear weapons program, which would require nuclear weapons testing prior to being deployed, and banned research that could lead to production of new, low-yield, nuclear weapons. The current law is found at section 3136 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. It is commonly known as the Spratt-Furse provision. The Senate passed version of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act repeals the current Spratt-Furse law, while the House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, modifies the current law. The House modification would allow the Department of Energy to conduct research on low yield nuclear weapons but not to begin the engineering design phase of the nuclear weapons process. The conferees have been working for several months to resolve the many differences in the two versions of the Defense Authorization Act. One of the issues that the conferees have yet to resolve is the issue of the Spratt-Furse provision. The conferees are discussing whether Spratt-Furse should be modified, as in the House-passed bill, or repealed, as in the Senate-passed bill, or whether both provisions could be dropped and the current law preserved. It is important to note that the Reed amendment is consistent with any of the possible outcomes in the defense authorization conference. Whatever the outcome, the Reed amendment will ensure that Congress plays a role in future nuclear weapons decisions.

Mr. LEVIN. In May of this year, unusually heavy rainfall occurred in four counties of the Upper Peninsula of my home State of Michigan-- Baraga, Gogebic, Marquette and Ontonagon Counties--causing rivers and streams throughout the area to swell out of their banks, inflicting severe and widespread damages. These four counties are not able to absorb this disaster as they have overall unemployment and poverty rates higher than the state average. The greatest damages occurred in Marquette County where an earthen dike at Silver Lake Basin failed, sending an estimated 8 billion gallons of water cascading downstream through central Marquette County and the city of Marquette toward Lake Superior. Rapidly moving water and massive amounts of trees, logs and other debris has severely undercut many sections of the riverbank, making them unstable and creating serious public safety and environmental concerns. Damages to one of the power generation facilities, the Presque Isle plant in the city of Marquette, resulted in shutdown for more than 30 days. Without power, two iron ore mines, which produce about 20 percent of our Nation's annual iron ore output, were shut down, idling 1,200 workers. These mines contribute nearly $115 million in personal income annually and are two of the largest employers in Marquette County. Even this temporary shutdown has had a significant negative impact on the local, regional, State and national economies. Dozens of other area businesses, institutions and private homeowners were also seriously impacted. Current estimates of economic damages alone to these counties, mostly to Marquette County, are calculated at over $100 million. There have been severe impacts to roads, bridges, culverts, water control structures, utility infrastructure and environmental and ecological damage to the waterways resulting from this flooding. When the public damage figures, currently estimated at $18-20 million, are combined with those high economic impacts caused by the loss of electrical power generation capabilities and the environmental degradation to the area, it paints a devastating picture for this area in Michigan. Further, this area is still recovering from the flooding that occurred last year. The fact that these counties have suffered two major disasters in two years is extremely significant. Without our assistance, Marquette and the other three counties will have a difficult, if not impossible, task of recovering from this disaster. And the health, safety, economic vitality, and quality of life of the communities and their citizens will certainly suffer for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support this request for $125 million in emergency funding for flood damage remediation assistance.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the implications of too much media concentration. During the Senate consideration of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I voted for an amendment authored by Senator Dorgan to keep the Television National Broadcast Cap at 25 percent of television households that a broadcast company could reach through its local broadcast stations. I opposed increasing the cap to 35 percent as the 1996 bill allowed. In June the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to adopt an order to relax current media ownership rules. I am a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 17, authored by Senator Dorgan, being considered by the Senate today to disapprove of the FCC ruling to lift media ownership restrictions. Loosening current media concentration restrictions would allow the media to become less responsive to local concerns and less likely to represent broad and diverse viewpoints. This is not in the public interest and should not be allowed. Today Members of the Senate can oppose these detrimental rule changes that will result in greater media concentration and less consumer choice by voting to disapprove them under the Congressional Review Act. I have supported the congressional review of rules dating back even before I came to the Senate. And I am proud and pleased that we have the opportunity to use it to stop this FCC rule today. This is exactly the situation in which the legislative review process is not only useful but necessary. When I first ran for the Senate in 1978, legislative review was actually a part of my platform. With all of the power executive agencies have we need to have a mechanism by where the politically accountable--that is the elected officials--can have a direct say in the rules and regulations issued by Executive Branch agencies. These agencies are supposed to be carrying out the will of Congress, and we have not only the right, but the responsibility to oversee their actions. I joined forces in the late 1970's and early 1980's with then Congressman Elliott Levitas in the House. In fact, along with Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, we got the legislative veto passed. But that law was held unconstitutional by the courts in the Chadha case because it allowed for a one house veto. The court ruled that legislation subject to the President's veto power is necessary to avoid violating the principle of separation of powers. We then fought to establish a congressional review process. It was with the bipartisan effort of Senators Harry Reid and Don Nickles almost 10 years ago, that we finally got legislative review enacted into law and I was proud to be part of that effort. And I'm glad to see that what many of us argued decades ago in support of this review process has proven to be true. This congressional review process is a two-edged sword. Some opponents argued it would be used only to limit valuable social programs, but we proponents argued that it was neutral politically--that it could be just as useful to protect against an agency that is regulating too little as it could be to rein in an agency that is regulating too much, or as with the case of the FCC, regulating unwisely.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues the recent remarks of our former colleague Senator Max Cleland concerning U.S. policy in Iraq. This is a passionate, powerful speech by a true American hero whose tremendous service to, and personal sacrifice for, this country should make of all of us mindful of his cautions and warnings. I ask unanimous consent that former Senator Cleland's speech by printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1994, I supported legislation that President Clinton signed into law banning the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and accept a detachable magazine. Pre- existing military-style semiautomatic weapons were not banned. This law is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004. Last week the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence released a report entitled ``Killing Machines: The Case for Banning Assault Weapons.'' This report explains why assault weapons are the guns of choice for criminals, and makes the case for renewing and strengthening the federal assault weapons ban. Also last week, the Consumer Federation of America announced its support for the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. Former Senator Howard Metzenbaum and Sonia Wills, mother of bus driver Conrad Johnson, the last victim of the Washington, DC- area sniper attacks, were joined by CFA and 25 state consumer, gun safety, and public health advocates to announce the beginning of a year-long effort to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban. I commend all of these individuals for their commitment to gun safety, and I look forward to working with them and other gun safety groups to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act, which would reauthorize this important piece of gun safety legislation. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I believe it is critical that we keep these weapons off the streets and out of our communities. If the law is not reauthorized, the production of assault weapons in the U.S. can legally resume. Restarting production of these weapons will increase their number and availability, and I believe lead to a rise in gun crimes committed with assault weapons. Although President Bush has indicated his support for renewing the ban, he has not yet taken action on its behalf. A spokesperson for House Majority Leader Tom Delay recently said, ``We have no intentions of bringing it up.'' I hope the President will take steps to urge the Congress to take up and reauthorize the bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to an extraordinary American who has shown great commitment to furthering the democratic process. On September 13, Fern Bellmore will be presented with the Daune Weiss award at the Northern Michigan County Democratic Party Dinner, also known as the ``Bash.'' Fern has worked tirelessly, raised a family, been actively involved in her community, and made great contributions in the political arena throughout her life and continues to do so to this day. In November, Fern and her husband, Robert, will celebrate 52 years of marriage surrounded by their 5 children, 11 grandchildren, and 5 great- grandchildren. In addition to raising a family, Fern also worked for 22 years at Cadillac Products in Alpena, MI. While working at Cadillac Products, Fern was pivotal in the unionization of the shop for the United Steelworkers and continued to be an active union member after her retirement. Fern's commitment to her community is evident through her continued involvement with several organizations. For many years she has been an active den mother for Cub Scouts, working with area youth to inspire and influence the future generations of this country. She has also worked closely with the American Cancer Society, Hospice, and The American Red Cross. Locally, Fern has served for many years, some as chair, on the Presque Isle County Board of Canvassers and is currently on the Board of Social Service for Presque Isle County. Fern has been active in the Democratic Party for over 20 years. During the majority of this time she was the Chair of the Presque Isle County Democratic Party. She helped establish the ``Bash'' in her determination to increase participation in elections for State representatives for Presque Isle County. Fern has also worked on numerous campaigns for local, State, and national candidates. Fern's unwavering support of her community and continued dedication to the democratic process has benefited citizens throughout northern Michigan and the entire State. Her commitment as a community leader and grassroots political activist has been a true inspiration to others around her. I am pleased to congratulate her on receiving the Daune Weiss award and salute Fern Bellmore for her service to the community as an outstanding citizen.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the Harkin amendment regarding the Bush administration's proposal to make regulatory changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, of 1938. The Bush administration's assault on middle-income white- and blue-collar workers continues with this latest proposal by the Department of Labor, DOL. Under current law, the FLSA requires employers to pay time and a half for overtime work except for some narrow exemptions. Introduced this Spring with little public notice, the DOL has proposed regulations that would disqualify potentially millions of workers from the overtime protections afforded them under the FLSA. Regulations proposed by the DOL on March 31 of this year would make it easier for employers to reclassify their workers as ``executive,'' ``administrative'' or ``professional'' employees who are not entitled to the overtime protections of the FLSA. According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than 8 million workers could be negatively affected by the Bush administration regulatory changes. This is a frontal assault on the 40-hour work week. The Harkin amendment would prevent the DOL from issuing any regulation that disqualifies currently covered workers from the overtime protections of the FLSA. The amendment would not prevent DOL from making changes to overtime regulations that would benefit low- income workers. There is simply no justification for stripping any workers of their overtime rights and thus their statutory right to time and a half. And the workers who would still be protected by the FLSA would also receive a pay cut because employers would naturally shift overtime assignments to the millions of workers no longer entitled to overtime pay. In 2000, overtime pay accounted for about 25 percent of the income of workers who worked overtime or about $161 a week. The President's much-touted tax cut would give workers earning less than $62,500 a tax cut of a $1.68 per week. This administration's overtime proposal is just not worker or family friendly. It will result in workers working more hours without overtime pay, undermining the 40- hour work week. The DOL proposed regulations would deny overtime protections not only to white-collar office workers, but also to many manual and other union workers. Union workers would be forced to negotiate for overtime protections that are now guaranteed by the FLSA. The overtime exceptions would affect all workers earning more than $65,000 as well as workers with certain specialized training such as policemen, firefighters, paramedics, EMTs, as well as other white-collar professionals such as secretaries, bookkeepers, and paralegals. Every facet of American industry will be affected by the proposed DOL regulations. For example, assembly line and production workers at auto manufacturing plants could lose overtime protection if they ``employ a high-level of skill or training.'' Furthermore, factory workers making up to $65,000 could lose overtime protection if they perform some nonmanual office work and have at least one job duty that can be characterized as ``executive,'' ``administrative'' or ``professional.'' Nonmanual office work seems to be a broad term that could encompass many fairly routine workplace activities. Even a worker who at the end of the day is required to document his or her workplace activities might be swept in to the administrative exemption. Surely this was not the intent of the FLSA. At a time when we are asking more and more of our Nation's first responders, the administration wants to eliminate their overtime pay. A good example are the police officers responsible for the security of the Capitol Complex. Many of these officers have consistently worked in excess of 40 hours ever since September 11, 2001. Many of these officers have spent long periods of time away from their family and friends with their only consolation being overtime pay. How can President Bush and Secretary Chao possibly tell law enforcement officers across this Nation that they no longer deserve to be paid overtime for their work? Mr. President, we must do what is equitable for American workers. Millions of workers depend on overtime pay to make ends meet. If the administration really wants to help low-income workers, they will support an increase in the Federal minimum wage to $6.65 an hour which would benefit far more than the 1.3 million low-income workers which DOL estimates will benefit from proposed changes. A vote for the Harkin amendment is a vote for working families across America. I hope it will receive a resounding ``yes'' vote.