Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan that would cut taxes for 8 million of our seniors that pay Social Security taxes. This boils down to a question of priorities. If we are going to pass a huge tax cut as the majority insists, who would we rather provide the tax cuts to? This amendment would provide tax relief to senior citizens who pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. Those who oppose this amendment apparently would rather provide tax breaks that mostly go to the wealthiest among us. They apparently would rather cut taxes on dividends that studies show will disproportionately benefit upper income folks. They apparently would rather accelerate tax cuts for taxpayers in the top bracket making over $300,000 a year. I would rather cut taxes for seniors than do these things. I will support the Dorgan amendment as a major improvement to the underlying bill reported by the Finance Committee.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a declaration recently filed in a California lawsuit by Mr. Robert A. Ricker, former assistant general counsel for the National Rifle Association and former executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, revealed that many in the gun industry have long known that their business practices make it easier for criminals to gain access to guns yet often fail to do anything about it. In his declaration, Mr. Ricker cites an example of irresponsible business practices in the gun industry known as straw purchasing. Straw purchases are a primary avenue by which a relatively small number of federally licensed firearm dealers supply the criminal market. A straw purchase involves a buyer with a clean record purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from doing so. Mr. Ricker asserts that it has long been known in the gun industry that many straw purchases and other questionable sales can be stopped if dealers are trained in preventing illegal activity. However, in the absence of such training and a commitment to responsible business practices, many straw sales continue to take place undetected. Instead of requiring their dealers to act responsibly, Mr. Ricker says that it has been a common practice among some gun manufacturers to adopt a ``see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil'' approach. This approach does nothing to discourage the evasion of firearms laws and regulations. Mr. Ricker's accounts confirm what has long been suspected. Some gun manufacturers and dealers know their practices facilitate criminal access to firearms but they do nothing about it. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that recently passed the House and that has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee would shield those negligent and reckless gun dealers and manufacturers from many legitimate civil lawsuits. Certainly, those in the industry who conduct their business negligently or recklessly should not be shielded from the consequences of their actions. Mr. Ricker's declaration contributes further evidence that this bill would assist some in the gun industry in avoiding responsibility for their business practices.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Warner/Levin/ Roberts amendment to the resolution of ratification on NATO Enlargement. Before I talk about our amendment, I want to take a few moments to express my strong support for the enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. A significant aspect of any enlargement of the Alliance to the United States, of course, is that it would represent a commitment by the United States to treat an armed attack on any of these seven nations as an armed attack on the United States. In 1998, when the Senate was considering the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the attitude of Russia to the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact was a factor which was part of the debate. Such enlargement was not intended to be threatening and, appropriately, it was not perceived as a threat by Russia, which wanted to establish a constructive relationship with the United States and the other members of NATO. As a matter of fact, Russia's decision on that matter was so clear that its position relative to NATO membership for former Soviet Republics Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is not even an issue today. One issue that I have wrestled with in 1998 and before was my belief that NATO should have a mechanism to suspend the membership of a NATO member, if that member no longer complies with the Alliance's fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. In the Armed Services Committee hearings that preceded the 1998 Senate floor action, I put the issue to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who said in part that ``I think in situations in which a government emerges incompatible with the common purpose of the Alliance, there ought to be some method, maybe along the lines you put forward.'' I also raised the issue with former Secretary of Defense William Perry who said in part that ``What you are describing is a problem--in fact, I would call it a flaw--in the original NATO structure, the NATO agreements. And, in my judgment, this is a problem which should be addressed.'' I had a colloquy with the then Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, who said in part that ``I agree with the Senator from Michigan that this is an important matter that raises fundamental issues for the United States and our allies. I believe that this is a matter that merits careful consideration within NATO councils. It would certainly be preferable for NATO to discuss this in a careful and measured way now, rather than be faced with the issue at some future time when an emergency situation exists.'' That careful and measured consideration, however, has not been undertaken within NATO councils in the interviewing years. Just as I supported enlargement of the Alliance to a total of nineteen nations in 1998, so I support enlargement of the Alliance today to a total of 26. But I am mindful that the sheer number of nations that will soon make up the alliance increases the chance that one of them may some day depart from the alliance's fundamental principles. Having said that, I want to be perfectly clear--our amendment is not aimed at any of the seven nations whose accession is before us today--it is not aimed at the three most recent NATO member nations--it is not aimed at any of the long-term NATO member nations-- and it is not aimed at any potential future NATO member nation--it is not aimed at any nation. It is aimed at the possibility that a NATO member nation that, for example, was no longer democratic and was ruled by a dictator, would be in a position to veto a decision that all of the other NATO member nations wanted to take--perhaps to come to the aid of a people who were being ``ethnically cleansed'' on a scale that was approaching genocide such as happened in Kosovo. I believe that the United States should put the issue of whether a process should be established to suspend-- suspend, not expel--such a member nation so that it would not endanger NATO's decision making when all but an undemocratic member nation wants to act. The growth in the number of NATO member nations to 26 also increases, under the laws of mathematics, the potential that one NATO member nation, even a nation that conforms to the alliance's fundamental principles, could prevent the alliance from making a decision where all other countries want to act. The recent experience, wherein France prevented the North Atlantic Council from authorizing planning for the defense of Turkey to proceed and the Alliance had to go to the Defense Planning Council for that authorization, is a real-world example that demonstrates the need for the alliance to reconsider whether the consensus rule for NATO decisions should be changed. I want to emphasize very strongly at this point that our amendment doesn't mandate a particular outcome to the discussion of these issues by the North Atlantic Council. It doesn't prejudge the result of the discussion and it doesn't require the U.S. representative to take a particular position in the discussion. It merely seeks to have the issues placed on the North Atlantic Council's agenda, discussed in the council, and the results of that discussion be reported back to the U.S. Senate. Our amendment would require the President's report to discuss two other matters. The first would be methods to provide more flexibility to NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who is presently U.S. General Jim Jones, to plan potential contingency operations before the formal approval of such operations by the North Atlantic Council. In the instance that I mentioned, wherein France blocked the planning for Turkey's defense, it would have been very useful if NATO's military planning staff could have been preparing contingency plans so that they would have been immediately available once the civilian decision-makers had approved the defense of Turkey. A final discussion item would be methods to streamline the process by which NATO makes decisions with respect to conducting military campaigns. This refers to the actual conduct of the operation--not to the approval to conduct it--and seeks to address the problems that were experienced in the conduct of the NATO operations in Kosovo where it is reported that General Wes Clark, the then-NATO Commander, was restricted in his actions as a number of NATO capitals insisted on reviewing and approving each day's bombing targets. This amendment does not interfere with the passage of the resolution of ratification. It does not cause any delay in the accession of the seven new members into the NATO Alliance. It merely seeks to cause the Alliance to consider some issues that could pose serious problems in the future if not addressed in a calm, careful and measured way before a crisis occurs. I ask unanimous consent that the discussion between myself and former Secretary of Defense Perry be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friends, the managers of this resolution, for their tremendous work on NATO expansion and other issues.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield our time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my good friend from Virginia for his great work on this resolution. We have worked together not just in the Senate for all of these years but on this particular issue we have worked together for a long time. I also thank the managers of this bill, not just for working with us on this matter but also for their work generally on a host of issues which they struggle with to try to make our Nation a lot more secure. They work together magnificently. They are both essential for this country's security and strength and wisdom, which we surely need in these complicated days.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. First, I very much support the expansion of NATO to include these seven additional countries, just as I supported the expansion for the three that we approved a few years ago. I believe this expansion, like the last one, could lead to a safer, more united, more cohesive Europe and reduce the possibility that Europe would ever again be divided by war. I very much support the expansion. I have been troubled by one issue for many years--actually a number of issues relative to NATO--that as we expand NATO, there is a greater likelihood, just statistically, that someday, some country is going to no longer live up to NATO's requirements that it be a democratic country with a free market. We hope that will never happen. We do not expect it to happen. But what happens, after these nations are added hopefully, if one day, one of the now 26 nations departs from the alliance's fundamental principles? As it now stands, there is no mechanism in the charter to suspend a country that no longer complies with NATO's fundamental principles. It is an unusual alliance in that regard that does not have a suspension mechanism, but it does not. We could actually, theoretically, see a country become a dictatorship and stop 25 democracies from acting in their own self-defense or in defense of a secure world. That is an unusual provision. It is one that was consciously adopted, but it is one that as we add more countries to NATO we have to think about, it seems to me. Our amendment is aimed at raising this issue. We do not direct that there be a solution to the problem. We simply believe that NATO countries, as NATO expands, should address the issue of a country in the future possibly departing from the fundamental principles that guide NATO. What happens, for instance, if one country becomes a dictatorship? That dictatorship could veto a decision that all the other NATO member nations wanted to take, perhaps to come to the aid of a people who were being ethnically cleansed on a scale perhaps approaching what happened in the genocide that occurred in Kosovo, or worse. That issue, as well as the consensus issue Chairman Warner has raised, should be raised at NATO. They should discuss it. They should decide whether or not they want to proceed on the current course. Again, I emphasize that our amendment, while expressing the sense of the Senate that the administration raised this issue at the North Atlantic Council, does not in any way indicate what the outcome of that discussion would be, nor, indeed, does it in any way suggest what the position of the United States should be during those deliberations. We simply want the issue of suspension and consensus and the other issues referred to in our resolution discussed at the highest level at NATO-- just discussed. There is a question raised: Is this aimed at any particular country? It is not. It is explicitly not aimed at any one of the 26 countries. We made it clear we amended our language to make it clear this would take effect 18 months after the resolution is adopted. We expect by then all the new countries will have been in long enough so there will be no sensitivity about that issue. We also make it clear this is not a condition in any way on the ratification of the NATO documents. It is drafted as a declaration of the intent of the Senate rather than as a condition of any type. That is, in essence, what we do. A final discussion item that is listed in the resolution would be methods to streamline the process by which NATO makes decisions with respect to conducting military campaigns. We believe this is essential because this refers to the actual conduct of military operations--not to the approval to conduct it but it seeks to address the problems that were experienced in the conduct of NATO operations in Kosovo where it was reported that General Wesley Clark, the then NATO commander, was restricted in his actions by a number of NATO countries that wanted to review each day's bombing targets. The planning should be allowed to proceed in advance in the event that the North Atlantic Council approves the operation. This simply would expedite and streamline the planning of military operations. Our amendment is not intended to interfere with the passage of our resolution of ratification. It would not cause any delay in the ascension of the seven new members into the NATO alliance. Again, it merely seeks to cause the alliance to consider some issues that could pose problems in the future, if not addressed in a calm, careful, and measured way before a crisis occurs. Discussion and report is what we are asking the administration to participate in and to initiate--again, not declaring what the position of this administration or any future administration will be and not in any way suggesting the outcome of those deliberations and discussions. It is a matter of prudence that this issue, which would have such huge ramifications down the road as to whether or not NATO can act, should be discussed in advance, whatever the outcome of that discussion. I thank Senators Lugar and Biden for working with us in a way so we now believe this matter can be resolved and adopted. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a recent report published by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence cites numerous examples of reckless sales and distribution practices by gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers. The report, entitled ``Smoking Guns: Exposing the Gun Industry's Complicity in the Illegal Gun Market,'' reveals a disturbing pattern of negligence by some in the gun industry. In one example, in 1996, according to the report, the owner and six employees of a California gun store were arrested for numerous Federal firearms offenses. The violations included selling illegally converted, fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles and having employees encourage customers to obtain false identification in order to skirt legal requirements for gun ownership. Even after the owner of the store was sent to prison, Heckler & Koch and other gun manufacturers, according to the report, continued to supply the store. In a letter explaining their ongoing business with the gun store, Heckler & Koch wrote that it ``is not our intention to turn away business.'' More recently, the sniper shootings that paralyzed the Washington, DC, area last year were committed with a rifle traced to a gun store in Tacoma, WA. According to the report, the Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle possessed by the sniper suspects was only one of 238 guns missing from the store's inventory. Despite previous ATF audits which revealed dozens of missing weapons and evidence linking a Bushmaster rifle from the store to the sniper killings, according to the report, a Bushmaster executive announced that his company still considered the same store a ``good customer'' and would continue to sell to it. These examples of gun industry negligence are by no means isolated. The Brady Campaign report contains numerous other examples of careless behavior on the part of gun manufacturers and dealers, many of which surfaced only after civil liability suits were filed. The Brady report reveals the disregard of some in the gun industry for even basic self- regulation. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that recently passed the House and that has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee would shield the gun industry from many legitimate civil lawsuits. Certainly, those in the industry who conduct their business negligently or recklessly should not be shielded from the civil consequences of their actions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Alexander, Bingaman and Warner, legislation that would authorize increased funding for the Department of Energy's, DoE, Office of Science. For two decades, funding for the Office of Science has remained stagnant while the cost of conducting cutting-edge research has continued to rise. Inadequate funding levels for the Office of Science, one of our Nation's leading sources of funding for research in the physical sciences, threatens our Nation's leadership in all sciences and thus also our economic well-being and our security. In the past fifty years, roughly one-half of the Nation's economic growth has been derived from investments in science and technology. The DoE's Office of Science portfolio is extensive. It is the chief sponsor of major research and user facilities benefitting researchers in the life sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Among these disciplines, the Office of Science possesses primary responsibility for research in fusion energy physics, nuclear physics, and high energy physics. Taken together, this research supports the DoE's responsibilities for energy security and defense. While much of this work is conducted by scientists and researchers at our world-class national labs, university-based research is greatly enhanced by DoE Office of Science funds. Over one-fifth of its budget is directed to university research, with 49 States receiving funding. This funding plays a central role in supporting significant, long-term, peer-reviewed basic research. Such on-campus research helps attract motivated students to the physical sciences. By stimulating the curiosity of talented students, and giving them a chance to engage in quality scientific work, the Office of Science expands our knowledge base while training the next generation of scientists and engineers. The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics shows the value that is posed by DoE's efforts to support on campus research be it through the DoE's Office of Science or other DoE programs. Since its founding in 1970, this lab has helped produce 161 Ph.D.'s. Currently 57 students are pursuing their doctorates while working at this facility. Additionally, the lab employs dozens of undergraduates and helps bring high school students to the facility each summer. By supporting nearly 2000 researchers at more than 250 universities and institutions in cutting edge research areas such as physics, nanotechnology, materials, genomics, and superconductivity, the Office of Science is able to help draw students to the sciences. It is the creation of the next generation of scientists that will fuel our nation's economic development and staff our nation's critical DoE facilities. According to the DoE Inspector General the ``Department has been unable to recruit and retain critical scientific and technical staff in a manner sufficient to meet identified mission requirements. . . . [I]f this trend continues, the Department could face a shortage of nearly 40 percent in these classifications within five years.'' If we do not increase funding for the DoE's Office of Science: maintenance backlogs will increase even further at major DoE facilities, major construction initiatives will lapse and even fewer research grants will be funded. As a result, our Nation's leadership in overall science and technology will be threatened since the physical sciences provide much of the core knowledge and instrumentation that fuel advances in many other critical fields of knowledge. Increasing funds for the DoE's Office of Science will support research in exciting fields such as: nanotechnology, high energy physics, genomics and supercomputing. By investing in the Office of Science, we can help scientists and engineers as they expand our knowledge of the universe and inform our interactions with it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the budget before the Senate, like the President's budget which it reflects, represents the wrong priorities: Too many ill-advised cuts in too many critical area to help pay for a tax cut which is too large, too inequitable, and which will worsen our fiscal situation without providing our economy the jump-start it needs. The budget resolution that passed the Senate, while irresponsible, was a small improvement over the one reported from the committee. The Senate managed to make an irresponsible budget resolution slightly less irresponsible. The huge tax cuts the President proposed, a majority of which would go to upper income folks and which most economists agree would provide our economy with almost no jump-start that it so desperately needs, were scaled back some. But the conference report before the Senate today pushes us right back to where we started. Notwithstanding our current record deficits, a war in Iraq and its expected aftermath, the full cost of which is not yet known, and a baby boom generation that will soon retire in record numbers, the conference report contains tax cuts that total about $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years and, with the expected interest costs added in, $1.6 trillion. As recently as January of 2001, the Office of Management and Budget projected a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we are back into a huge deficit hole and will be there for the foreseeable future. In fact, this conference report projects total deficits of $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, including record deficits of over $300 billion this year and next. The right type of small tax cuts could stimulate the economy by being effective in the short term and going to working families and small businesses who will spend the money now, instead of mainly going to the wealthiest among us who do not need tax cuts. Tax cuts that drastically worsen our long-term fiscal situation, that will not help out in the short term, and that would require cuts to many other priorities are not what our economy needs and not what our people are asking us to adopt. How much money is going to whom in 2003? The President's tax cut proposal gives about half of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 5 percent of American taxpayers. People can try to put a different gloss on numbers, but there are two bottom lines: One bottom line is this proposal puts us deeper into a deficit ditch and pays for tax cuts mainly going to upper income folks by borrowing; the other bottom line is that the 2003 tax cut proposal of the President gives the wealthiest 5 percent about 50 percent of the money involved in these tax cuts. Simple equity, as well as an economic stimulus, suggests if we are going to have tax cuts, they should be broad based, providing, for instance, every working family of four with an immediate tax cut of $1,200. That would be an economic stimulus. That would be equitable. That is not what is before the Senate. There are a number of other things we ought to do in talking about equity and economic stimulus. We ought to extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have expired and were not previously extended. We ought to provide short-term incentives for businesses to invest immediately. We ought to provide some assistance to our struggling states for education, homeland security, Medicaid, and highway and other infrastructure improvements. Those measures would be better for our economy today, our fiscal situation in future years, and the many other challenges that lie ahead. They would also address today's problems today without passing the costs on to future generations. One symbol of those future generations are the men and women who now are putting their lives on the line for us in the war in Iraq. It seems to me unthinkable that when we welcome them home--hopefully with the parades and the welcome and the hugs they deserve--we would also tell them: By the way, the war you are fighting is going to be paid for by you and your kids, not by us; we are going to borrow money, not to pay for this war; we are going to borrow this money to pay for a tax cut that mainly goes to the wealthiest among us. This approach in this budget is wrong on three counts. Number one, we should not be cutting taxes. We ought to be paying for the war now. Number two, if we are going to borrow money, if we have to borrow money for the war, we obviously should borrow it for the war, not for a tax cut. Finally, if there are going to be tax cuts, the tax cuts ought to go not only to those who need the tax cuts the most but those who will spend the money now, giving our economy the jump-start it needs. We need a lift in this economy, not one that will kick in years down the road or will further explode the deficit, but a fiscally responsible lift that will kick in now. The job loss numbers released a week ago by the Labor Department reinforce the need for a stimulus plan that will create jobs now, in 2003, when we need it. The proposed tax cuts are not only sharply slanted toward the wealthiest among us, they would do virtually nothing to assist our financially strapped States. As a matter of fact, the tax cuts as proposed may harm them. Just the proposed dividend tax provision alone would actually strip my home State of Michigan of over $100 million in revenue in 2004. And economists, including multiple Nobel Prize winners, agree the tax cut will not provide the boost that this economy needs. I was also very disappointed to see the conference report excluded an amendment that I offered and that was adopted by the Senate in the budget resolution which we adopted.

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment to which I referred, which was adopted by the Senate, was aimed at closing down certain abusive tax haven loopholes. We would have taken the money which we would receive by closing down these abuses and applied half of it to the deficit, the other half going to education in areas where we are cutting education. It is unconscionable to me that corporations, too many of them, have renounced their United States citizenship and opened phony offices in Bermuda from which they can then pretend that their businesses operate, keep doing their business here in the United States, using our police departments, our fire departments, our schools, and all of our other services--inverting, as it is called--getting the benefits of citizenship here but avoiding paying taxes. People ask, how come revenues are going down? There are a lot of reasons why revenues are going down. One of them is the tax cuts which were adopted here which were proposed by President Bush. Obviously, a slowing economy has had an effect, too. But one of the other reasons we lost revenues is that we have too many corporations that are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes through a very large number of tax avoidance schemes. We have seen some of these tax shelters. We have seen some of these special-purpose entities used by Enron and others. We have seen a whole host of ways folks can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It seems to me, in the middle of a war, the most unconscionable one of all is those corporations that renounce their citizenship and open up a fake office somewhere else in order to avoid paying taxes which they should be paying, and at the same time using our roads, our schools, our banks, our patent laws, our law enforcement, our fair trade laws, our workforce, and not contributing their fair share to pay for those benefits. It was really unfortunate that the conferees decided to strip this budget resolution of language that was aimed at closing down that particular loophole. This budget emphasizes the wrong priorities. It burrows us deeper into the deficit ditch. It continues our reliance on the Social Security surplus. And it fails to provide the stimulus which is needed to improve our sputtering economy. It rises to a new level of irresponsibility and it should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Alexander, Bingaman and Warner, legislation that would authorize increased funding for the Department of Energy's, DoE, Office of Science. For two decades, funding for the Office of Science has remained stagnant while the cost of conducting cutting-edge research has continued to rise. Inadequate funding levels for the Office of Science, one of our Nation's leading sources of funding for research in the physical sciences, threatens our Nation's leadership in all sciences and thus also our economic well-being and our security. In the past fifty years, roughly one-half of the Nation's economic growth has been derived from investments in science and technology. The DoE's Office of Science portfolio is extensive. It is the chief sponsor of major research and user facilities benefitting researchers in the life sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Among these disciplines, the Office of Science possesses primary responsibility for research in fusion energy physics, nuclear physics, and high energy physics. Taken together, this research supports the DoE's responsibilities for energy security and defense. While much of this work is conducted by scientists and researchers at our world-class national labs, university-based research is greatly enhanced by DoE Office of Science funds. Over one-fifth of its budget is directed to university research, with 49 States receiving funding. This funding plays a central role in supporting significant, long-term, peer-reviewed basic research. Such on-campus research helps attract motivated students to the physical sciences. By stimulating the curiosity of talented students, and giving them a chance to engage in quality scientific work, the Office of Science expands our knowledge base while training the next generation of scientists and engineers. The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics shows the value that is posed by DoE's efforts to support on campus research be it through the DoE's Office of Science or other DoE programs. Since its founding in 1970, this lab has helped produce 161 Ph.D.'s. Currently 57 students are pursuing their doctorates while working at this facility. Additionally, the lab employs dozens of undergraduates and helps bring high school students to the facility each summer. By supporting nearly 2000 researchers at more than 250 universities and institutions in cutting edge research areas such as physics, nanotechnology, materials, genomics, and superconductivity, the Office of Science is able to help draw students to the sciences. It is the creation of the next generation of scientists that will fuel our nation's economic development and staff our nation's critical DoE facilities. According to the DoE Inspector General the ``Department has been unable to recruit and retain critical scientific and technical staff in a manner sufficient to meet identified mission requirements. . . . [I]f this trend continues, the Department could face a shortage of nearly 40 percent in these classifications within five years.'' If we do not increase funding for the DoE's Office of Science: maintenance backlogs will increase even further at major DoE facilities, major construction initiatives will lapse and even fewer research grants will be funded. As a result, our Nation's leadership in overall science and technology will be threatened since the physical sciences provide much of the core knowledge and instrumentation that fuel advances in many other critical fields of knowledge. Increasing funds for the DoE's Office of Science will support research in exciting fields such as: nanotechnology, high energy physics, genomics and supercomputing. By investing in the Office of Science, we can help scientists and engineers as they expand our knowledge of the universe and inform our interactions with it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I rise today in commemoration of the Armenian genocide. As the 88th anniversary of this horrific event approaches, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the men, women and children who were murdered or displaced in the 20th century's first systematic attempt to extinguish an entire people. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish Ottoman government initiated a campaign to expel 1.75 million ethnic Armenians from its borders. Turkish authorities operated under the baseless claim that its Armenian community would be disloyal in a time of war since they were neither Turks nor Muslims. On April 24, government leaders rounded up 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in what was then Constantinople for their deportation or, for many, their deaths. In nearby areas, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were killed in their homes or on the streets. Over the course of the subsequent 2 years, between 500,000 and 1 million Armenians were killed and 750,000 were forced to leave their homes. Henry Morgenthau, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire remarked, ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Records of eyewitness accounts allow us to gain an incomplete yet painful understanding of the atrocities the Armenian people faced. An American missionary wrote, `` . . . All tell the same story and bear the same scars: their men were all killed on the first days [sic] march from their cities, after which the women and girls were constantly robbed of their money, bedding, clothing and beaten, criminally abused and abducted along the way.'' Another account by an Armenian and corroborated by a German missionary said, ``We all had to take refuge in the cellar for fear of our orphanage catching fire. It was heartrending to hear the cries of the people and children who were being burned to death in their houses. The soldiers took great delight in hearing them, and when people who were out in the street during the bombardment fell dead, the soldiers merely laughed at them. . . . `` I wish we could say that such events are in the past and that history will never again have not been learned and millions of other people and races have suffered at the hands of malicious leaders who have acted upon their messages of hate and intolerance. Each year during my tenure in the Senate, I have spoken out about the Armenian genocide. I believe the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of any genocide is by acknowledging the horrors they faced and reaffirming our commitment to fight against such heinous acts in the future. It is important that we take the time to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors, especially as that generation passes on. I know my Senate colleagues join me in celebrating the continued vitality of the Armenian culture, and in honoring and remembering the victims of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey published in November 2001 reported that almost 7 percent of State inmates and more than 9 percent of Federal inmates carried military- style semiautomatic weapons in carrying out the crime for which they were convicted. In 1997, roughly 43 percent of inmates who carried a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon fired it and more than 25 percent of them killed or injured their victim. Military-style semiautomatic weapons are modifications of traditional semiautomatic weapons. They incorporate features intended to give users an advantage in combat situations. Such features include but are not limited to: pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The 1994 semiautomatic assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and accept a detachable magazine. Preexisting military-style semiautomatic weapons were not banned. The semiautomatic assault weapons ban will expire on Sept. 13, 2004. If the law is not reauthorized, the production of military-style semiautomatic weapons can legally resume. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics study illustrates, the use of military-style semiautomatic weapons is already a widely used option for many in the criminal population. Restarting production of these weapons will obviously increase their number and availability. Such an increase does not bode well for public safety. It is critical that we reauthorize the semiautomatic assault weapons ban. We should not wait for new statistics to demonstrate that more criminals are turning to newly manufactured military-style semiautomatic weapons. Existing evidence of past behavior is clear. If we wait, more damage will already have been done. Military-style semiautomatic weapons represent a danger to the lives of police officers and the general public. For the safety of our Nation's citizens, the Congress should act this year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about sentencing- related provisions included in the legislation now under consideration. The bill which the Senate passed in February of this year addressed an important issue--on which their was unanimous bipartisan agreement--of cracking down on child pornography. While I am pleased that the bill before us retains the provisions of that bill, it also proposes wholesale, and in my view unwise, changes to procedures for judicial departures from the sentencing guidelines in criminal cases. The bill before the Senate contains a provision requiring de novo review of all sentencing departure cases appealed to the circuit courts. This provision overturns, without there having been any State debate on the issue, the interpretation of the ``due-deference'' standard for review of district court sentencing decisions contained in the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Koon v. United States. In that case, the Court said: We agree that Congress was concerned about sentencing disparities, but we are just as convinced that Congress did not intend, by establishing limited appellate review, to vest in appellate courts wide ranging authority over district court sentencing decisions. Indeed, the text of section 3742 manifests an intent that district courts retain much of their traditional sentencing discretion. Section 3742(e), as enacted in 1984, provided ``[t]he court of appeals shall give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.'' In 1988, Congress amended the statute to impose the additional requirement that courts of appeals ``give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts . . . The bill also threatens to chill the use of judicial discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines by imposing burdensome reporting requirements on judges who depart. Further, it requires the Attorney General to provide both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with a report containing information--including the identity of the district court judge--on every downward departure in any case. The Judicial Conference of the United States has said, in an April 3, 2003, letter to Senator Hatch: We oppose the systematic dissemination outside the court system of judge-identifying information in criminal case files. . . . We urge Congress to meet its responsibility to oversee the functioning of the criminal justice system through the use of this and other information without subjecting individual judges to the risk of unfair criticism in isolated cases where the record may not fully reflect the events leading up to and informing the judge's decision in a particular case. Surely we should hear from the Judicial Conference which has some serious concerns about the impact of this provision on judicial decisionmaking. The bill could also have the effect of dramatically altering the composition of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission consists of seven members. Under current law, at least three of it members must be Federal judges selected by the President from a list of six judges submitted by the Judicial Conference. By removing the requirement that judges hold at least three of the seven seats on the Sentencing Commission, the bill threatens the integrity and future good judgement of the Commission. I do not believe that this is a wise change because judges have a unique perspective on the issue of criminal sentencing. These are just a few among the many troublesome provisions that were inserted into a piece of legislation after its passage in the Senate had enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The Senate has not had the opportunity to consider the potential impact of these provisions through either hearings or floor debate. Mr. President, I am disappointed that they are now being considered in a conference report which we will not have opportunity to amend.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Georgia be recognized and I be recognized immediately following the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if there would be any objection to adding 10 minutes to this period of time, given the number of speakers we have on the floor. I would not want to do that without the leadership knowing about it. I wonder if somebody could check to see if there would be any objection to our adding 10 minutes to this particular period. Mr. President, one of my greatest pleasures and privileges of serving on the Armed Services Committee has been the close working contact I have had with the men and women who make up America's Armed Forces. They truly represent the best our Nation has to offer. Whenever I visit them, no matter where they are stationed or deployed, I come away proud and impressed by their courage, their professionalism and their commitment. Across the country, Americans have rallied, volunteered, and sent donations to show their support for our military members serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This generosity of heart has been apparent in every corner of my home State of Michigan. Michigan has a long tradition of giving its all in support of young Americans waging a war overseas. Over 60 years ago, Michigan's automotive factories were the heart of the ``Arsenal of Democracy'', which helped to bring an Allied victory in World War II. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at that time, Americans at home were a crucial component of the war: ``We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice'' as those serving on the front lines. And Michiganders have always stepped up to that challenge, giving of their time, their resources, their energy, and their love in support of our troops. Since the war in Iraq began, in countless ways, Michiganders have sought to express their thanks to our service members. There are currently over 3,400 Michiganders from National Guard and Reserve units who have been activated, in addition to many active duty service members for Michigan serving in support of ongoing military operations. In February, I traveled to Kuwait, Qatar, and other places in the region and had the honor of meeting with a group of about 20 Marines from Michigan at Camp Commando. These dedicated, professional men and women were highly motivated, well prepared, and their morale was high. They are remarkable representatives of America and the values we stand for. To show our gratitude for their work, thousands have rallied across Michigan in support of the troops. At the Capitol in Lansing, at Centennial Park in Holland, at Calder Plaza in Grand Rapids, at Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor, and St. Mary's Park in Monroe-- among many other locales--groups have gathered to voice support for the troops and wish them a quick, safe return home. In Jackson, people lined the streets for a parade to send off members of a local Army Reserve unit mobilized to active duty. A parade was held in Houghton, where uniformed men and women displayed their colors for the troops, and a similar event in support of the service members is planned in Cheboygan. Bowen Holliday Post 35 of the American Legion in Traverse City is giving out Blue Star Service Banners to military families as a visual reminder of sons and daughters serving the country. And Rudyard, Michigan--a town of 1,315 in the Upper Peninsula--has seen more than ten percent of its population mobilized on active military duty. Although the Defense Department prohibits sending care packages to ``any servicemember'' due to security concerns and transportation constraints, Michigan residents have found many ways to provide service people with a piece of home. Girl Scouts in the Upper Peninsula are conducting a campaign called ``Cookies From Home.'' The scouts are collecting donations from U.P. residents, and the money will be used to buy boxes of Girl Scout cookies which they will send to the troops. Last year, Girl Scouts in the Upper Peninsula sent 2,076 boxes of cookies to Bosnia and Saudi Arabia as part of the campaign. Students at Ishpeming High School in the U.P. have started a letter writing campaign to Ishpeming graduates who are now serving in the military overseas. The Gogebic County Sheriff's Department is participating in Operation Adopt-A-Family, which is intended to help people who need assistance as the result of the deployment of a spouse or parent. Many groups--including the Milan Area Chamber of Commerce-- have ``adopted'' soldiers, sending them correspondence, thoughts and prayers. Two Jackson, Michigan, men have teamed up to write ``Heroes Piano,'' a song supporting the troops. A group of Wayne schoolchildren is showing their support by making a special video in appreciation of U.S. service members. Similarly, but on a larger scale, the ABC television station in Detroit is traveling around town with a camera for a project called ``To Our Troops,'' in which they provide residents with an opportunity to send a message directly to the men and women in the battlefield. Unfortunately, war is a dangerous business and it grieves me to report that four Michigan service members have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Marine Major Kevin G. Nave of Union Lake, Army Sergeant Todd J. Robbins of Pentwater, Army Sergeant Michael F. Pedersen of Flint, and Private First Class Brandon Sloan of Fraser. I want to close my remarks this morning by paying tribute to their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families as they cope with their loss. They should know that a grateful Nation will never forget their loved one and the sacrifice they have made. On behalf of all of the people of Michigan, I say thank you to all the men and women of our armed forces who are carrying out the dangerous mission of disarming Saddam Hussein and his regime. May God speed you home. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have moved into morning business, is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, over the past 450 years, more than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments, and as a result they can wreak havoc on native species. Invasive species threaten to biological diversity. Some experts consider invasive species and the ecological damage they cause to be a greater environmental threat worldwide than chemical pollutants. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused nationwide by these species go as high as $137 billion. In my home State of Michigan, there is a disaster unfolding which could dramatically increase this cost. For the past few years, scientists have been concerned with the unusually high number of dead and dying Ash trees in the metro-Detroit area. Late last summer, scientists determined that the problem is caused by a beetle which came into the country from Asia: the Emerald Ash Borer. This beetle is indigenous to Asia and has been found in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Mongolia and Eastern Russia. Like other invasive species, the Emerald Ash Borer is destroying native species. While scientists believe that the insect came into the country as little as five years ago, it has already left millions of trees in the Detroit area dead or dying. Since there is no economically feasible manner to treat trees, there is concern that all of the Ash trees in the Detroit area will be dead within 5 years. In order to stop the spread of the Ash Borer, last summer the Michigan Department of Agriculture imposed a quarantine to stop Ash trees, logs and firewood as well as Ash tree nursery stock from being removed from Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw or Livingston countries in Southeastern Michigan. Later in the fall, Monroe country was added. The Michigan Department of Agriculture is currently working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the creation of a program to potentially eradicate the Emerald Ash Borer, yet funds from USDA, for a comprehensive effort, have yet to be provided. The presence of this beetle has been allegedly reported in other parts of Michigan, and the beetle has recently been positively identified in Toledo, Ohio and Windsor, Ontario. Ohio, Indiana and the Province of Ontario, Canada, are very concerned about the spread of this pest, and the web-sites of their respective Departments of Agriculture have contained warnings about the beetle. Now, with the presence of the beetle in Toledo and Windsor, those fears have increased. One proposal for stopping the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer would be to create a ``fire break'' by removing trees in a ring around the affected area. Since scientists believe that this beetle can only fly three miles, such an approach, which is already underway in the area surrounding Windsor, Canada, could be successful. However, doing so would be expensive and money is desperately needed not only for beetle eradication and tree removal but also for research. While the effects of the Ash Borer on Southeast Michigan have already been devastating, the potential results of the beetle's spreading could be catastrophic. As one of the most popular urban trees, Ash trees are found across much of the country. This invasive pest has the potential to be as destructive as the historic Dutch Elm Disease. The sad irony is that Ash trees were planted in place of many of the Elm trees that our State and Nation lost years ago. Should the Ash Borer spread continue, the Forest Service estimates that the potential impact could affect ``up to 2 percent of total leaf area and could impose a value loss between $20-60 billion.'' This number is arrived at without including the cost of replanting deforested areas. This devastation has already crossed state borders and will cross more unless dealt with. State and local governments cannot be expected to deal with it. They also face budget shortfalls that are necessitating drastic cuts in basic services because of declining revenue, increasing demands and extensive budget constraints. They are having trouble funding existing obligations to schools and police forces even without having to pay to address the new multi-State threat posed by the Emerald Ash Borer. I have received letters from cities in Michigan, civic organizations and from the Southeast Michigan Council of Government, or SEMCOG, which represents 151 local governments in the region all asking that the Federal Government take an active role in stopping the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer. Without such active and timely support, coordination and funding from USDA, it is unlikely that this problem can be adequately addressed. SEMCOG has stated that ``the Emerald Ash Borer is decimating the Ash tree population in a 2000 square mile core area within the counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston and Washtenaw.'' Michigan State Senator Raymond Basham and State Representative Glenn Anderson have written to me about this problem. In his letter to me, Representative Anderson said that ``Michigan is facing another round of budget cuts at the local levels and local communities simply will not be able to afford the added burden of removing and replacing these trees.'' Adding to this burden is the fact that local governments are required to remove these trees from rights of ways and government properties because dead trees create significant public health risks and liability issues for property and personal damage. Governor Granholm has worked hard to support cooperative efforts that are underway between the State of Michigan and United States Departments of Agriculture. In meetings with her, she has said that USDA funding is essential to address this problem. If the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer is not arrested, it will cost billions of dollars to pay for the removal of dead Ash trees and the replanting of new trees. The costs associated with the loss of the Ash tree are not merely financial in nature. Habitat will be destroyed, scenic vistas will be denuded and residential streets that were once tree-lined will no longer have needed shade. It is critical that we address the Emerald Ash Borer before it is able to spread across a greater area. It is essential that the United States Department of Agriculture complete its efforts to provide much- needed emergency funding to address the Emerald Ash Borer. The Michigan delegation has written twice to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman about this matter. In these letters, the Michigan delegation has stated that without ``swift and sure action, the entire ash tree population will be lost. To avoid this tragedy, we asked that USDA provide funds to ``determine the problem's extent,'' and ``for combating and eradicating this invasive species.'' It is imperative that the USDA provide $17 million in Fiscal Year 2003 emergency funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to combat the Emerald Ash Borer and that the Office of Management and Budget approve these funds as expeditiously as possible. Additionally, USDA should provide research monies that would enable USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and the Forest Service's North Central Research Station to work with Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University and other world-class schools of forestry to fund vital research into this problem. The beetle's larvae hatch in the Spring, and while it may not be possible to kill this year's hatch of beetles, time remains of the esssence if the Emerald Ash Borer is to be eradicated. Addressing the matter now will be costly, but delays in addressing the matter will only increase the costs and diminish the likelihood of success. The Emerald Ash Borer's spread can be halted, but action must be taken quickly. It is for that reason that I urge Secretary Veneman to immediately provide the emergency and research funds that will be a vital component of any effort to address the problems created by this persistent pest. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sleeping Bear Dunes expansion bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank the managers and all the other persons who worked with us to get this legislation included in the managers' amendment and, hopefully, passed tomorrow.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, here is a description of what the Levin- Nelson provision would do. First, the provision will grant the SEC administrative authority to impose civil monetary fines on any person who violates Federal securities laws. Under current law, only broker-dealers, investment advisers, and certain other persons are now subject to administrative fines by the SEC. Our legislation will allow the SEC to impose administrative fines on anyone who violates Federal securities law, including, for example, corporate officers, directors, auditors, lawyers, or publicly traded companies, none of whom are now subject to being fined by the SEC in administrative proceedings. These fines, of course, would be subject to judicial review, as are all SEC administrative determinations. Last year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I then chaired, conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of Enron. As a result of that investigation, the Subcommittee determined that Enron's board of directors and officers and certain major financial institutions assisted Enron in carrying out deceptive accounting transactions and other abuses that misled investors and analysts about the company's finances. The Subcommittee's last Enron hearing in December also highlighted the fact that the SEC is in need of additional tools to deal with the individuals and entities that participated in Enron's deceptive accounting or tax strategies. Our legislation would give to the SEC new authority to impose an administrative fine on anyone who violates the Federal security laws--not just broker-dealers or investment advisers, but also corporate directors or officers, employees, bankers, lawyers, auditors, law firms, accounting firms, corporations, financial institutions, partnerships, and trusts. Second, the provision will significantly increase the maximum civil administrative fine that the SEC is able to impose on persons who violate Federal securities laws. The civil administrative fines that the SEC is currently authorized to impose have statutory maximums that, depending upon the nature of the securities law violation, range from a maximum of $6,500 to a maximum of $600,000 per violation. Again, the particular amount depends upon the nature of the violation. In a day and age when some CEOs make $100 million in a single year, and a company like Enron can report gross revenues of $100 billion in a single year, a civil fine with a maximum of $6,500 is laughable. Here is what one SEC staff stated about the current maximums in a document dated June 2002, and this explains why the agency is supporting our legislation: The current maximum penalty amounts may not have the desired deterrent effect on an individual or corporate violator. For example, an individual who commits a negligent act is subject to a maximum penalty of $6,500 per violation. This amount is so trivial it cannot possibly have a deterrent effect on the violator. Our provision would increase the civil fine maximums from a range of a maximum of $6,500 to a maximum of $600,000 per violation, depending on the nature of the securities law violation, to a range that goes from a maximum of $100,000 to a maximum of $2 million per violation. At a time when we are seeing corporate restatements and misconduct involving billions of dollars, these larger fines are critical if the fines are to have an effective deterrent or punitive impact on wrongdoers. Third, the Levin-Nelson provision would grant the SEC new administrative authority, when the SEC has opened an official SEC investigation, to subpoena financial records from a financial institution without having to notify the subject that such a records request has been made, thereby bringing the SEC's subpoena authority into alignment with the subpoena authority of Federal banking agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This authority would allow the SEC to trace funds, evaluate financial transactions, and analyze financial relationships without having to alert the subject of an investigation to the SEC's inquiry. Under current law, the SEC either has to give the subject advance notice of the subpoena or spend precious time seeking to obtain a court order to delay notification. Cases we are seeing today involve allegations of persons using offshore accounts to move millions of dollars or engage in complex transactions that materially affect the financial statements and tax returns of publicly traded companies in the United States. The SEC must be able to look at financial records quickly without giving the subject of the inquiry an opportunity to move funds, change accounts, or further muddy the investigative waters. This authority is particularly important in light of the Patriot Act of 2001, which for the first time requires securities firms to detect and report possible money laundering through U.S. securities accounts. The SEC cannot be expected to effectively monitor these anti-money laundering efforts or act quickly to trace possible terrorist financing or other suspicious financial conduct if, as is the case now, the SEC must provide advance notice to investigative subjects or obtain court orders granting delayed notification. No Federal banking agency operates under these types of constraints in its anti-money laundering efforts, and there is no reason why the SEC should. Our provision would modernize the SEC's oversight authority and bring it into alignment with the Federal banking agencies. Last year, the Sarbanes-Oxley law strengthened law enforcement and stiffened penalties for Federal securities crimes. By enacting the Levin-Nelson provision this year, Congress would help put some teeth into SEC enforcement on the civil side. We originally offered this legislation as an amendment to the Senate bill that resulted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but were unable to obtain a vote before time ran out. That is why we are back. Investor confidence in U.S. capital markets has not been fully restored, and Congress needs to provide strong leadership to assure U.S. investors that their interests are protected. A vigorous SEC that can act quickly to impose civil fines on those who violate Federal securities laws can help restore investor confidence in the effectiveness of U.S. securities laws and capital markets. In addition, since many securities violations warrant civil rather than criminal treatment, strengthening the SEC's civil enforcement authority would help streamline the available civil enforcement options and give the SEC better tools to fashion appropriate civil penalties. Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this provision. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the former Chairman of the SEC, Harvey Pitt, dated August 30, 2002, also endorsing this legislation be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sleeping Bear Dunes expansion bill be printed in the Record.