Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today along with Senators Collins, Jeffords and others the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003. As a resident of Michigan I am familiar with the obstacles facing local communities in their attempts to return brownfields sites to productive economic uses. As co-chair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force I understand the national economic importance of these efforts. Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic development and posing a threat to human health and the environment. Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields sites blight communities forcing development onto greenfields where they exacerbate the problems associated with urban sprawl. If brownfields were instead redeveloped they could offer new opportunities for business, housing and open space. Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean-up the environment, maximize use of existing infrastructure, create jobs and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. My home state of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields redevelopment. For example, the City of Traverse City managed to leverage $662,000 of government brownfields funding to turn a former gas station and junk yard site into a $20 million private investment in a retail, office and parking facility called Radio Center. The City of Ludington used brownfields funding to spur the development of a multi- use retail/office/condominium complex adjacent to a marina. These are only two examples of the many successful efforts by local communities to leverage Federal, State and local money to harness the resources and expertise of the private sector in economic development efforts. The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 would open up the possibilities of redevelopment to numerous other communities nationwide. The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act expands the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, EDA, initiatives to assist communities with brownfields redevelopment. The bill authorizes $60 million annually for five years for brownfields redevelopment. Grant money will be used for purposes including collaborative economic development planning, eco-industrial development and revolving loan funds. By encouraging development in existing communities the brownfields program will strengthen local economies, preserve precious resources and make best use of existing infrastructure. This bill for the first time would provide specific authority and funding to the EDA for these initiatives. The new projects authorized by the bill would complement the existing and successful brownfields efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that redevelopment of all of the brownfields nationwide could generate more than 550,000 additional jobs that would benefit our many economically struggling communities. Cities and States could see as much as $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Economic Development Administration has helped distressed communities attract investment, create jobs and strengthen their economies for the last forty years. This bill will build on EDA's success in helping localities improve their infrastructure and help them redevelop their brownfields sites. Communities nationwide have expressed interest in brownfields redevelopment but lack the financial resources necessary to accomplish their goals. This bill is an excellent example of how the Federal Government can be supportive of local economic development projects. The Brownfield Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 advances the goals of the smart growth movement by helping create healthier communities and strengthens the economy through federally supportive, locally driven initiatives. Many organizations support these bills, including the American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Enterprise Institute, National Business Incubation Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, National League of Cities, US Conference of Mayors, National Congress for Community Economic Development, Smart Growth America and others. I ask unanimous consent to have letters endorsing this bill printed, the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today along with Senators Collins, Jeffords and others the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003. As a resident of Michigan I am familiar with the obstacles facing local communities in their attempts to return brownfields sites to productive economic uses. As co-chair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force I understand the national economic importance of these efforts. Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic development and posing a threat to human health and the environment. Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields sites blight communities forcing development onto greenfields where they exacerbate the problems associated with urban sprawl. If brownfields were instead redeveloped they could offer new opportunities for business, housing and open space. Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean-up the environment, maximize use of existing infrastructure, create jobs and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. My home state of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields redevelopment. For example, the City of Traverse City managed to leverage $662,000 of government brownfields funding to turn a former gas station and junk yard site into a $20 million private investment in a retail, office and parking facility called Radio Center. The City of Ludington used brownfields funding to spur the development of a multi- use retail/office/condominium complex adjacent to a marina. These are only two examples of the many successful efforts by local communities to leverage Federal, State and local money to harness the resources and expertise of the private sector in economic development efforts. The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 would open up the possibilities of redevelopment to numerous other communities nationwide. The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act expands the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, EDA, initiatives to assist communities with brownfields redevelopment. The bill authorizes $60 million annually for five years for brownfields redevelopment. Grant money will be used for purposes including collaborative economic development planning, eco-industrial development and revolving loan funds. By encouraging development in existing communities the brownfields program will strengthen local economies, preserve precious resources and make best use of existing infrastructure. This bill for the first time would provide specific authority and funding to the EDA for these initiatives. The new projects authorized by the bill would complement the existing and successful brownfields efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that redevelopment of all of the brownfields nationwide could generate more than 550,000 additional jobs that would benefit our many economically struggling communities. Cities and States could see as much as $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Economic Development Administration has helped distressed communities attract investment, create jobs and strengthen their economies for the last forty years. This bill will build on EDA's success in helping localities improve their infrastructure and help them redevelop their brownfields sites. Communities nationwide have expressed interest in brownfields redevelopment but lack the financial resources necessary to accomplish their goals. This bill is an excellent example of how the Federal Government can be supportive of local economic development projects. The Brownfield Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 advances the goals of the smart growth movement by helping create healthier communities and strengthens the economy through federally supportive, locally driven initiatives. Many organizations support these bills, including the American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Enterprise Institute, National Business Incubation Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, National League of Cities, US Conference of Mayors, National Congress for Community Economic Development, Smart Growth America and others. I ask unanimous consent to have letters endorsing this bill printed, the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the current situation in Iraq. There has been a broad consensus that Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant and that the world is a more dangerous place if he has weapons of mass destruction. There has also been consensus that he has not complied with his obligations under the U.N. ceasefire resolution at the end of the Gulf War and the numerous resolutions that followed, which called for him to disarm, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction. And there has been consensus that the U.N. should enforce its resolutions more forcefully than it had in recent years. This led to passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 which resulted in the resumption of weapons inspections by the U.N. Now there is division at the U.N. Many members of the United Nations want to complete the inspections and keep Saddam contained and in a box until those inspections are completed. Just a few days ago, the President said he would call for a vote at the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of force so that every member nation could state its position. The President has now apparently reversed himself in the face of a likely rejection by the Security Council. The issue, until yesterday, was whether to proceed militarily without the support of the world community as expressed by the Security Council or, alternatively, to give the inspectors the months they said they need to complete their work, the position which many members of the Security Council apparently favor. The President has apparently chosen the former course. I have felt that course was unwise for a number of reasons. By failing to rally the Security Council to a common view, we have lost the best chance to force Saddam Hussein to capitulate because it is likely that only if Saddam Hussein sees a united world at the other end of the barrel will he see no potential to turn the tide to his favor. A world solidly against him would be a world that an anti-U.S. propaganda machine would have great trouble stirring up. Just as in the gulf war, Saddam was unable to score any propaganda points when 28 nations, including a number of Muslim nations, provided military forces against him. Another reason I have felt that proceeding without the U.N. would be unwise is we would lose some support in the region, with the resulting loss of staging areas and overflight rights, as is apparently the case in Turkey, which, in turn, could increase the length of the war and the number of casualties. There are also serious long-term risks in proceeding without support of the world community as expressed through the U.N. Such an attack on Iraq would be viewed by much of the world as an attack by the West against an Islamic nation, rather than of the world against Saddam. We would fuel the anti-Americanism that is already so prevalent, and stoke the terrorism which is already our No. 1 threat. Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February: Much of the world is increasingly apprehensive about U.S. power and influence. Many are concerned about the expansion, consolidation, and dominance of American values, ideals, culture, and institutions. Reactions to this sensitivity to growing ``Americanization'' can range from mild ``chafing'' on the part of our friends and allies, to fear and violent rejection on the part of our adversaries. We should consider that these perceptions mixed with angst over perceived ``U.S. unilateralism'' will give rise to significant anti-American behavior. I have also felt that proceeding without the U.N. would make it less likely that other nations will join us in the difficult tasks of providing stability in reconstructing Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said the following: If they [the members of the U.N. Security Council] cannot agree on a common position and if some of them launch action without the support of the [Security] Council, the legitimacy of this action will be widely questioned and it will not obtain the political support required to ensure its success in the long term, once the military phase is over. The European Union's External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, likewise pointed out recently that ``if it comes to war, it will be very much easier'' to make a case for other countries to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq ``if there is no dispute about the legitimacy of the military action that has taken place.'' Further, and of great significance, President Bush's principal basis for launching a military action is Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and other U.N. resolutions. But how is it credible to invoke the Security Council's resolutions as a basis for our action and then ignore that same Security Council if it does not agree with us on the wisdom of military action at this time and does not give us the resolution we want? Stressing the importance of a U.N. authorization does not give the U.N. a veto over American action. Nobody has a veto over America's foreign policy or decisionmaking. The decision is America's and America's alone. The issue is not whether we need the U.N.'s permission to use force; we don't. The issue is whether it would be wise to have the U.N.'s support and whether we will be more secure from terrorists and other threats if we initiate a military action against Iraq without the support of the world community. If there were an imminent threat against us, we would not--and should not--hesitate to use force. But attacking in the absence of an immediate threat is a very different scenario with very different risks. The President has said that the U.N. will become irrelevant if it does not authorize member states to use military force at this time against Iraq. But the Security Council's decision in this matter, whichever way it would have gone, would have been highly relevant. If the Security Council authorized force by member states, that would be relevant as a statement of the world community against Saddam. But if the Security Council rejected authorizing force at this time, as they apparently would have, it would still be relevant because our use of military force in the face of such a Security Council rejection could have a worldwide negative political impact with great peril to us. The issue is not whether we will prevail militarily without the U.N.'s support; we will. The issue is whether our long-term security would be enhanced in that circumstance or whether chaos and instability in the Middle East, following our unilateral action, will be deep and long and more costly, and whether the level of terrorism against us in the world will rise to a higher point than it otherwise would. The U.N. too often has been seen by the administration as an obstacle to overcome instead of an opportunity to rally the world. And the administration has also weakened its case at the U.N. in a number of ways. It has used divisive rhetoric and denigrating attitude towards the views of other nations whose support we seek. Countries have been told ``you are either with us or against us.'' The U.N. has been told that while we welcome U.N. endorsement, we can do just fine without you. U.N. inspectors were called ``so-called'' inspectors. And before U.N. inspections even began, they were called useless. Germany and France were sneered at as being part of ``old Europe.'' This kind of rhetoric alienates our friends and fuels the inflammatory propaganda of our enemies. Divisive and dismissive rhetoric is no way to rally the Security Council. It comes across as bullying and domineering. The White House spokesmen have also spun facts in a transparent way, contradicting themselves from day to day. The refusal of Iraq to assure the safety of U-2 surveillance planes was at first called a serious breach of resolution 1441. When agreement was reached between U.N. inspectors and Iraq to fly the planes shortly thereafter, the White House spokesman said the agreement was no big deal. Similarly, when the inspectors determined that Iraqi missiles violated U.N. resolutions limiting their range, the White House pointed to the violation as significant evidence of noncompliance. When, soon thereafter, Iraq agreed to destroy those missiles, with U.N. inspectors looking on, the White House spokesman said that action was evidence of the Iraqis' deception. That kind of spinning and reversal of field by White House spokesmen has not helped our credibility or our cause. We will prevail militarily in Iraq on our own, albeit with increased risk, but it will be more difficult to win the larger war on terrorism without the world community in our corner. We need the eyes and the ears and the intelligence of the people of the world if we are going to detect and ferret out, deter, and destroy those who care nothing for international law and do not even accept the rules of war. Historically, America has been strongest when we found common cause with other nations in pursuit of common goals. The path to a safer world and a more secure America has rarely come from a go-it-alone approach. Thomas Friedman wrote recently in the New York Times: [I]f Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a more decent Iraq, but something more important--America's efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world. If war against Iraq comes, far better it be seen as the decision of the world community, not just a U.S.-British decision. The President said accurately on January 3 that Saddam Hussein has no respect for the Security Council and does not care about the opinion of mankind. But surely we should. President Bush has now decided to end the diplomatic effort. Those of us who have questioned the administration's approach, including this Senator, will now be rallying behind the men and women of our armed forces to give them the full support they deserve, as it seems certain we will soon be at war. Last October a majority of both Houses of Congress voted to authorize the President to use military force with or without the authority of the United Nations. While I disagreed with that decision and offered an alternative, the overriding fact is that this democracy functions through debate and decision. The decision to give the President wide authority was democratically arrived at. The courageous men and women whom we send into harm's way are not just carrying out their orders with bravery and the highest form of professionalism. They are also implementing the outcome of the democratic debate which this Nation protects and honors. Those men and women should know that they have the full support and the fervent prayers of all of the American people as they carry out their missions. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my recent remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Boston World Affairs Council, along with two of my opening statements at recent Armed Services Committee hearings, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, nearly three decades ago, a small provision was included in the Trade Act of 1974. While relatively small in number of words, this provision, known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment, helped open up an entire society. Three decades ago, during the height of the Soviet Union's power, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik introduced legislation that exposed the repressive tactics of the Soviet Union. By focusing attention on the emigration restrictions that the Soviet Union placed on its Jewish citizens, the Jackson-Vanik amendment reiterated American concern about the wide-scale human rights abuses occurring in the Soviet Union. In the process, the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a vital role in changing Soviet society. Now, as the cold war recedes further into the past, it is time for Russia to be ``graduated'' from Jackson-Vanik. Because of the persistence of the Jackson-Vanik requirements, the administration must report semi-annually on the Russian Federation's compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements. This reporting requirement is a source of much frustration and embarrassment to our Russian friends, a fact that is made clear to me whenever I meet with individuals or groups from Russia. Russia has made great progress in reforming itself. Since 1994, consecutive administrations have noted that the Russian Federation has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In this time, the United States has signed a bilateral trade agreement with Russia, and the Bush Administration according to its website ``has begun consultations with Congress and interested groups on the possibility of graduating Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.'' Graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik at this time will improve our relations with Russia while enabling us to reflect upon the courage of Soviet Jewry and the success of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. Leonid Nevzlin, former President of the Russian Jewish Congress and a current member of the Russian Senate, be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. LEVIN. This letter states that ``there should be no doubt that the Jewish community believes the Jackson-Vanik requirements have been met in terms of immigration and freedom of movement in today's Russia.'' This bill, which Senator Baucus is introducing and which I am pleased to co-sponsor, would enhance relations between the United States and Russia. While recognizing the advances made by Russia, the legislation also ensures that Congress can continue to play a meaningful role in addressing trade disputes with Russia and in setting the terms of World Trade Organization, WTO, accession for Russia. While this legislation grants Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, to the Russian Federation, it does not abrogate the rights of Congress to comment on Russia's accession to the WTO nor does it remain silent about the need for continued progress by the Russian Federation with regard to human rights matters. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was but one part of the Trade Act of 1974 that addressed trade with nonmarket economies. Recognizing the trade policy aspects of ``graduating'' a country from Jackson-Vanik, Congress has traditionally granted PNTR to a country subject to Jackson-Vanik only at the time of its accession to the WTO. This practice has given Congress the ability to voice its approval for the terms by which a nation accedes to the WTO. The terms for Russia's WTO accession are still being discussed, and even though this legislation would provide PNTR for Russia before those terms are final it also provides Congress with the means to comment on those terms and voice its approval or disapproval for them. This legislation addresses the concerns of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment while preserving Congress' ability to play a key role in discussions about Russia's accession to the WTO. In a piece encouraging the ending of Jackson-Vanik's applicability for Russia, the Israel Policy Forum stated that: ``things change. Old empires disappear. Old enemies become new friends. History's challenge is to anticipate its direction and move along with it.'' This legislation recognizes the profound changes wrought by the Jackson-Vanik Amendment while acknowledging our need to move forward as we continue to engage with Russia on matters of human rights and trade. Exhibit 1 June 27, 2002. Hon. Carl Levin, United States Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Levin: I am pleased we had an opportunity to meet when I was in Washington, DC last week. Your long- standing interest to promoting closer working relationships between the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament is much appreciated. As promised, I am sending a copy of my letter, as president of the Russian Jewish Congress, to Presidents Bush and Putin expressing support for repeal of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. I prepared the letter some time ago and it is surprising that more people in the U.S. Senate were unaware that it had been sent. There should be no doubt that the Jewish community believes the Jackson-Vanik requirements have been met in terms of immigration and freedom of movement in today's Russia. I have also taken note of your concerns about the sale of dual use technology to Iran and Iraq. In this regard, as you recall I proposed in our meeting that our two chambers establish a framework to assess how we can both develop greater cooperation on matters of mutual concern. I am very pleased that both you and Chairman Biden encouraged me to develop such a framework and look forward to working with both of you to see that this is accomplished. On another matter, I know of your interest in reducing America's dependence on oil shipments from Middle East countries and though you would like to know that Russian oil company YUKOS, will be delivering the first load of Russian oil to Houston, Texas soon. I am confident that Russia could be a reliable supplier and would welcome the opportunity to work with you and others in Congress on initiatives that would encourage this development. It is my hope to build a closer working relationship with select members of the U.S. Senate in order to take a fresh approach to a new set of challenges that beset both our countries. In recognition of the upcoming celebration of America's Independence Day on July 4, I extend my best wishes to you, as representative of the people, for your country's remarkable achievement. Sincerely, Leonid Nevzlin, Senator, Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs, Council of Federation of Russian Parliament.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1994 President Clinton signed into law a ban on 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. This law is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004. Last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated the Bush administration's support for the current ban on assault weapons, but refused to support reauthorization of the ban. I believe we should not only reauthorize this bill, but strengthen it. I hope the Bush Administration will support reauthorization. According to National Institute for Justice statistics cited by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban has successfully reduced the use of assault weapons in crime. According to the report, crime gun traces for assault weapons declined by 20 percent the first year after the ban took effect from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Comparatively, trace requests on all crime guns decreased by only 11 percent over the same period of time. Even with the success of the ban, assault weapons still pose a threat to community safety. In 1994, every major national law enforcement organization, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, and the Major City Police Chiefs Association, supported the Federal assault weapons ban. I expect that law enforcement will again support this important piece of gun and community safety legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the President to support the reauthorization of this important bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today it is my great pleasure to recognize Project Rehab for 35 years of dedicated service promoting personal and community health throughout my home State of Michigan. Since 1968, Project Rehab has functioned as a community-based outreach to people experiencing behavioral and mental health problems. Project in Rehabilitation began as the joint effort of Dr. William Kooistra and Dr. Chet Maternowski to offer counseling and treatment to heroin addicts in Grand Rapids, MI. Through their valuable service, Drs. Kooistra and Maternowski promoted awareness of drug addiction in a community that was not then equipped to address this problem. Overcoming sometimes harsh criticism, they succeeded in establishing their organization as a place of hope for those needing drug abuse treatment. Over the years, Project Rehab has grown to fit the changing needs of its clients. While maintaining a strong emphasis on treating addiction and substance abuse, Project Rehab now offers a broad range of services, including work-release programs for prisoners, employee counseling, and educational programs to encourage behavioral and mental health. Today, Project Rehab serves 5,000 clients annually in cities across Michigan. Through its educational services, Project Rehab educates more than 9,000 students, warning them of the dangers posed by drug and alcohol use. Within its field, Project Rehab is recognized as an innovative force, bringing unique treatment to individuals in need. As one of the largest and longest running substance abuse programs in Michigan, I commend Project Rehab for improving the lives of many in Michigan and setting an example for other programs around the country. I know that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in congratulating Project Rehab for their committed work and for the hope they have given to many.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Leahy, Byrd, Jeffords, and Lieberman to introduce the Restore Freedom of Information Act, Restore FOIA, that will provide the public with access to information, while at the same time ensuring that information voluntarily submitted to the government by companies is not improperly disclosed. In order to ensure public access and limit improper disclosure, we need to reexamine some aspects of the Homeland Security Act, HSA, which was rushed through Congress last year, dropping several carefully-crafted, bipartisan measures which had been adopted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, along the way. Dropping those measures left ambiguities in the law that need to be clarified, and today's bill is an attempt to make those clarifications and address certain problems that could otherwise result. The issue this bill addresses is public access to information in the possession of the Homeland Security Department. Although some seem to want to shroud all homeland security efforts in secrecy, as Judge Damon Keith, writing for the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals, recently warned ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' The principles of open government and the public's right to know are cornerstones of our democracy. We cannot sacrifice those principles in the name of protecting them. One of the reasons that I voted against the Homeland Security Act last year was because the final bill dropped a bipartisan provision, passed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, clarifying how the new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should comply with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The final bill substituted a poorly drafted provision that could inappropriately close the door on persons seeking unclassified information from the Department related to critical infrastructure. What is critical infrastructure? Critical infrastructure is the backbone that holds our country together and makes it work--our roads, computer grids, telephones, pipelines, water treatment plants, utilities, and other facilities essential to a fully functioning Nation. It so happens that, in the United States, much of our critical infrastructure is controlled by private entities, often privately owned or publicly traded corporations. To strengthen existing protections for these facilities, the Federal Government asked the companies that own them to submit unclassified information about their facilities to assist the government in evaluating them, identifying possible problems, and designing stronger protections from terrorist attack, natural disasters, or other threats to homeland security. Some companies asked to voluntarily submit this information feared that it might be improperly disclosed, and sought a new exemption from the Federal Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, to prohibit disclosure of so-called ``critical infrastructure information.'' Reporters, public interest groups, and others feared that, if this FOIA exemption were granted, companies could send important environmental and safety information to DHS under the general heading of ``critical infrastructure information'' and thereby put this information out of the public's reach. To bring these sides together, last July, Senators Bennett, Leahy and I worked out a bipartisan FOIA compromise that codified existing case law with regard to companies voluntarily submitting information. At the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the homeland security legislation, Senator Bennett said that the Administration supported our compromise, but the language was ultimately dropped from the final Homeland Security Act. As a result, the media, public interest groups, and others continue to fear that companies may be hiding important health and safety information that has long been public and should be public behind the mask of ``critical infrastructure.'' To rectify this situation, today we are introducing a bill that would change the existing HSA language in several important ways. First, our bill defines the key term, ``critical infrastructure,'' in a more focused way than the overly broad language in the HSA. To do that, our bill draws from language in existing case law, that has already been tested by the courts. The existing HSA language, it interpreted broadly, could expand the prohibition on disclosing critical infrastructure information to include virtually every aspect of a company's operations, denying public access to a great deal of health and safety information that the public has a right to know. If this expansive interpretation was not the intent of the bill's drafters, then they should be willing to accept our court-tested language. A second important change that our bill would make in the existing HSA involves the issue of civil immunity for companies that violate the law. As currently worded, the HSA seems to suggest that companies which voluntarily submit to DHS critical infrastructure information indicating that the company is in violation of public health or safety regulations may gain protection from legal action in court to halt or penalize this wrongdoing, even if the information shows that the company is acting negligently. For example, the current HSA provisions could lead to the disturbing situation where DHS learns, through a critical infrastructure submission, that a company is leaking polluted sludge into a nearby waterway in violation of environmental restrictions, but is barred from going to court to stop the pollution because the law appears to prohibit the agency's use of the critical infrastructure information in a civil action. Our bill would eliminate the possibility that the HSA would provide companies with civil immunity under these circumstances. A third key problem with the existing HSA language is that it includes a provision that could send a Federal whistleblower who discloses critical infrastructure information, even to an appropriate authority, to prison. The language is clear that if a DHS employee discloses unclassified critical infrastructure information, even when acting as a whistleblower who reveals the information to Congress in an act of conscience or patriotism, that whistleblower could wind up in jail. My colleague, Senator Leahy, describes a whistleblower who works at the FAA who blew the whistle on government collusion to coverup failures by airlines to meet tests on airline preparedness. That whistleblower could have ended up in jail had he blown the whistle under today's law. A year in jail is quite a deterrent for a Federal employee who is thinking about blowing the whistle, and we have never before threatened Federal whistleblowers with jail terms. It is a bad idea, and it is counterproductive to homeland safety. There are other troubling provisions in the current HSA law as well, equally detrimental to the public's right to know. For example, the HSA exempts all communication of critical infrastructure information from the open meeting and other sunshine requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and places critical infrastructure information outside restrictions on ex parte contacts. The HSA also pre-empts state and local sunshine laws, an undue intrusion on the power of the States. The bill we are introducing today would strike all of these unnecessary provisions, and create in their stead a narrow FOIA exemption that balances the prohibition against improper disclosures of critical infrastructure information with the public's right to know. Finally, I would like to include in the Record two examples of situations that could occur under the language in the HSA but would not occur under our bill. These disturbing examples were provided by Dr. Rena Steinzor, Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, on behalf of the center for Progressive Regulation. Case Study Number 1 is the following: A large Midwest utility decides to replace an old coal burning electric generation unit with a new one. The new unit, much larger than the first, will produce significantly greater air pollution emissions. The company could mitigate these increases by installing additional pollution control equipment, but decides it does not wish to incur the expense. It begins construction and simultaneously reports its plans to the DHS as ``critical infrastructure information,'' so Federal security experts will know about its increased capacity to generate electricity. A Department of Homeland Security employee, visiting the plant to consult on government purchases of power during emergency situations, notices readings on internal gauges reflecting the dramatically increased emissions. She telephones EPA to report the situation. EPA issues a Notice of Violation to the company, and threatens to bring an action for civil penalties, but is instructed to desist by DHS officials who inform EPA that the HSA prohibits disclosing the information provided to the agency in court and that DHS wants to list the company as an emergency supplier capable of providing expanded electricity production in an upcoming report to Congress. EPA drops its enforcement action, and the DHS employee not only loses her job but also is prosecuted criminally. Case Study Number 2 is the following: Lobbyists representing companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Homeland Security routinely submit materials describing their companies' products in glowing terms. They arrange repeated trips for government purchasing agents to exotic locations under the guise of briefing them regarding the technical aspects of the products. All of this information is designated as critical infrastructure by the companies, and is therefore protected from disclosure and oversight by the media or possibly even individual members of Congress who could see the information but not reveal it. The Homeland Security Act was never intended to protect polluters or special interests from public scrutiny. But as these examples demonstrate, that is exactly what could happen if the current, vague language in the law is not corrected. The bill we are introducing today would make the needed corrections. On January 17, 2003 at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee, I questioned Governor Ridge about these problems with the current wording of the Homeland Security Act. I asked him whether the HSA could have the unintended consequences of providing protections for wrongdoing while impeding access to necessary information to protect public health and safety. Governor Ridge replied: ``[T]hat certainly wasn't the intent, I am sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption, to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity, and I will certainly work with you to clarify that language.'' If that was not the intent, then let us fix the vague, and potentially dangerous provisions that are in this bill. I would also note, for the record, that many organizations have endorsed our bill including the following: American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, American Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Arab American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Production Network, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Cook Inlet Keeper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Council on Professional Association of Federal Statistics, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Environmental Defense, Federation of American Scientists, Freedom of Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Fund for Constitutional Government, Government Accountability Project, Greenpeace, Magazine Publishers of America, Maryland Pesticide Network, National Federation of Press Women, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, Newsletter & Electronic Publishers Association, Newspaper Association of America, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, OMB Watch, Pesticide Action Network, North America Powder River Basin Resource Council, Privacy Activism, Privacy Times, Project on Government Oversight, Radio- Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, University of Missouri School of Journalism, West Harlem Environmental Action Working Group on Community Right-to-Know.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Leahy, Byrd, Jeffords, and Lieberman to introduce the Restore Freedom of Information Act, Restore FOIA, that will provide the public with access to information, while at the same time ensuring that information voluntarily submitted to the government by companies is not improperly disclosed. In order to ensure public access and limit improper disclosure, we need to reexamine some aspects of the Homeland Security Act, HSA, which was rushed through Congress last year, dropping several carefully-crafted, bipartisan measures which had been adopted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, along the way. Dropping those measures left ambiguities in the law that need to be clarified, and today's bill is an attempt to make those clarifications and address certain problems that could otherwise result. The issue this bill addresses is public access to information in the possession of the Homeland Security Department. Although some seem to want to shroud all homeland security efforts in secrecy, as Judge Damon Keith, writing for the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals, recently warned ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' The principles of open government and the public's right to know are cornerstones of our democracy. We cannot sacrifice those principles in the name of protecting them. One of the reasons that I voted against the Homeland Security Act last year was because the final bill dropped a bipartisan provision, passed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, clarifying how the new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should comply with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The final bill substituted a poorly drafted provision that could inappropriately close the door on persons seeking unclassified information from the Department related to critical infrastructure. What is critical infrastructure? Critical infrastructure is the backbone that holds our country together and makes it work--our roads, computer grids, telephones, pipelines, water treatment plants, utilities, and other facilities essential to a fully functioning Nation. It so happens that, in the United States, much of our critical infrastructure is controlled by private entities, often privately owned or publicly traded corporations. To strengthen existing protections for these facilities, the Federal Government asked the companies that own them to submit unclassified information about their facilities to assist the government in evaluating them, identifying possible problems, and designing stronger protections from terrorist attack, natural disasters, or other threats to homeland security. Some companies asked to voluntarily submit this information feared that it might be improperly disclosed, and sought a new exemption from the Federal Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, to prohibit disclosure of so-called ``critical infrastructure information.'' Reporters, public interest groups, and others feared that, if this FOIA exemption were granted, companies could send important environmental and safety information to DHS under the general heading of ``critical infrastructure information'' and thereby put this information out of the public's reach. To bring these sides together, last July, Senators Bennett, Leahy and I worked out a bipartisan FOIA compromise that codified existing case law with regard to companies voluntarily submitting information. At the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the homeland security legislation, Senator Bennett said that the Administration supported our compromise, but the language was ultimately dropped from the final Homeland Security Act. As a result, the media, public interest groups, and others continue to fear that companies may be hiding important health and safety information that has long been public and should be public behind the mask of ``critical infrastructure.'' To rectify this situation, today we are introducing a bill that would change the existing HSA language in several important ways. First, our bill defines the key term, ``critical infrastructure,'' in a more focused way than the overly broad language in the HSA. To do that, our bill draws from language in existing case law, that has already been tested by the courts. The existing HSA language, it interpreted broadly, could expand the prohibition on disclosing critical infrastructure information to include virtually every aspect of a company's operations, denying public access to a great deal of health and safety information that the public has a right to know. If this expansive interpretation was not the intent of the bill's drafters, then they should be willing to accept our court-tested language. A second important change that our bill would make in the existing HSA involves the issue of civil immunity for companies that violate the law. As currently worded, the HSA seems to suggest that companies which voluntarily submit to DHS critical infrastructure information indicating that the company is in violation of public health or safety regulations may gain protection from legal action in court to halt or penalize this wrongdoing, even if the information shows that the company is acting negligently. For example, the current HSA provisions could lead to the disturbing situation where DHS learns, through a critical infrastructure submission, that a company is leaking polluted sludge into a nearby waterway in violation of environmental restrictions, but is barred from going to court to stop the pollution because the law appears to prohibit the agency's use of the critical infrastructure information in a civil action. Our bill would eliminate the possibility that the HSA would provide companies with civil immunity under these circumstances. A third key problem with the existing HSA language is that it includes a provision that could send a Federal whistleblower who discloses critical infrastructure information, even to an appropriate authority, to prison. The language is clear that if a DHS employee discloses unclassified critical infrastructure information, even when acting as a whistleblower who reveals the information to Congress in an act of conscience or patriotism, that whistleblower could wind up in jail. My colleague, Senator Leahy, describes a whistleblower who works at the FAA who blew the whistle on government collusion to coverup failures by airlines to meet tests on airline preparedness. That whistleblower could have ended up in jail had he blown the whistle under today's law. A year in jail is quite a deterrent for a Federal employee who is thinking about blowing the whistle, and we have never before threatened Federal whistleblowers with jail terms. It is a bad idea, and it is counterproductive to homeland safety. There are other troubling provisions in the current HSA law as well, equally detrimental to the public's right to know. For example, the HSA exempts all communication of critical infrastructure information from the open meeting and other sunshine requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and places critical infrastructure information outside restrictions on ex parte contacts. The HSA also pre-empts state and local sunshine laws, an undue intrusion on the power of the States. The bill we are introducing today would strike all of these unnecessary provisions, and create in their stead a narrow FOIA exemption that balances the prohibition against improper disclosures of critical infrastructure information with the public's right to know. Finally, I would like to include in the Record two examples of situations that could occur under the language in the HSA but would not occur under our bill. These disturbing examples were provided by Dr. Rena Steinzor, Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, on behalf of the center for Progressive Regulation. Case Study Number 1 is the following: A large Midwest utility decides to replace an old coal burning electric generation unit with a new one. The new unit, much larger than the first, will produce significantly greater air pollution emissions. The company could mitigate these increases by installing additional pollution control equipment, but decides it does not wish to incur the expense. It begins construction and simultaneously reports its plans to the DHS as ``critical infrastructure information,'' so Federal security experts will know about its increased capacity to generate electricity. A Department of Homeland Security employee, visiting the plant to consult on government purchases of power during emergency situations, notices readings on internal gauges reflecting the dramatically increased emissions. She telephones EPA to report the situation. EPA issues a Notice of Violation to the company, and threatens to bring an action for civil penalties, but is instructed to desist by DHS officials who inform EPA that the HSA prohibits disclosing the information provided to the agency in court and that DHS wants to list the company as an emergency supplier capable of providing expanded electricity production in an upcoming report to Congress. EPA drops its enforcement action, and the DHS employee not only loses her job but also is prosecuted criminally. Case Study Number 2 is the following: Lobbyists representing companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Homeland Security routinely submit materials describing their companies' products in glowing terms. They arrange repeated trips for government purchasing agents to exotic locations under the guise of briefing them regarding the technical aspects of the products. All of this information is designated as critical infrastructure by the companies, and is therefore protected from disclosure and oversight by the media or possibly even individual members of Congress who could see the information but not reveal it. The Homeland Security Act was never intended to protect polluters or special interests from public scrutiny. But as these examples demonstrate, that is exactly what could happen if the current, vague language in the law is not corrected. The bill we are introducing today would make the needed corrections. On January 17, 2003 at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee, I questioned Governor Ridge about these problems with the current wording of the Homeland Security Act. I asked him whether the HSA could have the unintended consequences of providing protections for wrongdoing while impeding access to necessary information to protect public health and safety. Governor Ridge replied: ``[T]hat certainly wasn't the intent, I am sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption, to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity, and I will certainly work with you to clarify that language.'' If that was not the intent, then let us fix the vague, and potentially dangerous provisions that are in this bill. I would also note, for the record, that many organizations have endorsed our bill including the following: American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, American Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Arab American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Production Network, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Cook Inlet Keeper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Council on Professional Association of Federal Statistics, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Environmental Defense, Federation of American Scientists, Freedom of Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Fund for Constitutional Government, Government Accountability Project, Greenpeace, Magazine Publishers of America, Maryland Pesticide Network, National Federation of Press Women, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, Newsletter & Electronic Publishers Association, Newspaper Association of America, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, OMB Watch, Pesticide Action Network, North America Powder River Basin Resource Council, Privacy Activism, Privacy Times, Project on Government Oversight, Radio- Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, University of Missouri School of Journalism, West Harlem Environmental Action Working Group on Community Right-to-Know.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I commemorate the Michigan American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, Council 25, AFL-CIO for 25 years of dedication to State and local government employees. On March 14, 2003, members and supporters of Michigan AFSCME Council 25 will gather to celebrate the commitment this organization has shown and the support it has provided to working families in my home State of Michigan. For over six decades, AFSCME and its members have worked to combat adversity in the workplace. What began as an effort to save civil service jobs expanded to become an adaptive and dynamic collective bargaining organization. AFSCME has thrived throughout its history by creatively meeting the difficult challenges that it and its members have faced. Today, the organization is a national leader among organized labor movements. For the past quarter century, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 has represented and advocated for public employees throughout Michigan. The organization's membership includes employees of State, county, and municipal governments, school districts, public hospitals, and nonprofit agencies. Since the formation of Michigan AFSCME Council 25 by special convention in March of 1978, it has been a strong force dedicated to improving working conditions and advocating for its members. Today, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 represents over 60,000 public employees and is organized into more than 300 local unions. Workers of virtually all public service occupations find a specialized voice within AFSCME. Because of the unwavering dedication that Michigan AFSCME Council 25 has shown to its community, working families and public employees have seen their working conditions improve and their voices heard. I know that my Senate colleagues will join me in offering our congratulations to Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and its members as they celebrate their 25 years of unwavering support for Michigan's working families.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I raise an issue that has come to my attention regarding the Justice Department's reported attempt to restrict the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by local law enforcement. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Associated Press, a Department of Justice attorney recently threatened to bring charges against a top firearm official in California. The charges stem from California's practice of conducting National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS background checks. According to reports, the dispute involves the use of the NICS database by law enforcement to determine if guns seized in criminal investigations should be returned to their owners. California officials need access to the NICS database because it includes data from across the country and therefore more accurately determines whether a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm. Local law enforcement in California performs these checks thousands of times per year. An example from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence illustrates the problem. When responding to a domestic violence complaint, law enforcement in California ask if there are any firearms present in the home and take temporary custody of any guns they find. Before returning the guns, law enforcement asks the California Department of Justice to run a NICS background check to determine whether the gun owner is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging this practice, claiming that it is a misuse of the NICS background check system. The U.S. Justice Department wants law enforcement to stop performing these checks and immediately return guns to their owner. The Brady Law contains nine categories of individuals prohibited from purchasing and possessing a firearm including felons and illegal immigrants. I believe that law enforcement in all 50 states and the District of Columbia should do everything within the law to insure that these potentially dangerous individuals do not gain access to firearms. The State of California is carrying out a common sense application of the law. As the Los Angeles Times said in a recent editorial, the Justice Department's threatened actions are reckless, and are contrary to both public safety and sensible public policy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Los Angeles Times editorial be included in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank both Senators for the assurance that they will urge the administration that the reporting provided for under the Resolution of Ratification would hopefully include the information I have just outlined. Amendment No. 256, Withdrawn Mr. President, I now withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the yeas and nays have not been ordered. I modify my amendment by striking the word ``any'' on line 5 and striking the word ``relevant'' on line 5 and substituting the word ``pursuant'' for the word ``relevant'' on line 5. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, condition 2 of the Resolution of Ratification requires the President to submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Armed Services Committee an annual report that would include, among other things, the following: A, a listing of the strategic nuclear weapons force levels of the United States and a best estimate of the strategic nuclear weapons force levels of the Russian Federation as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year; B, a detailed description, to the extent possible, of strategic offensive reductions planned by each party for the current calendar year. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that those elements of the report should include certain important information on operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. I have discussed this matter with Senators Lugar and Biden, and I think we can address the issue satisfactorily with a colloquy between myself and Senators Lugar and Biden. My question of Senator Lugar is the following: Will the committee urge the administration to include under the annual reporting requirements required by conditions 2(a) and 2(b), that the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services would receive information on the following: During the calendar year of the report, the specific number and type of warheads that are planned to be no longer operationally deployed; secondly, during that current calendar year, the planned total size and makeup of the stockpile of strategic nuclear warheads by number and by type; and as to the past year, the report would then, hopefully, include and be urged to include by Senators Lugar and Biden the total number and type of any warheads that were dismantled during the preceding calendar year?

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a few moments, I will send an amendment to the desk. Before I do so, I will make some general comments on the Moscow Treaty which is before the Senate. I first wish to congratulate and commend our good friends from Indiana and Delaware for their great work on this treaty. As on so many other issues, they have worked together well in the national interest. The document which is before us, as well as the Resolution of Ratification, represents a lot of significant work on their part. I applaud them for it. The treaty before us is a modest but a positive step in the United States-Russia relationship. It is particularly important we have this treaty. At some point it was suggested the agreement not be in the form of a treaty. As a matter of fact, the administration finally decided--I think wisely so, and I believe with the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee--that we have a legally binding treaty rather than relying on unilateral steps that are not binding on future administrations and can be easily changed. Having a treaty ensures that the Senate is going to be able to fulfill its constitutional role, giving due consideration of any treaty and providing advice and consent before ratification. I view this treaty as a starting point for further nuclear arms reductions and a useful boost to our new and developing and evolving relationship with Russia. There is much more work to be done to continue to improve our mutual security with Russia, and that work includes further reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons, reducing nuclear proliferation dangers, and improving confidence, transparency, and cooperation with Russia on nuclear weapon matters. This treaty, while important, is also somewhat unusual. Its central obligation is that both nations will reduce their operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level between 1,700 and 2,200 some 10 years from now. There are no gradual steps. It is just at a moment in time, 10 years from now, that level of between 1,700 and 2,200 must be reached. It could be a reduction in the operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads for a very brief period, providing 10 years from the date of ratification that level is reached, and then the treaty expires. Contrary to numerous media reports, this treaty does not require reductions in nuclear warhead stockpiles or delivery systems. In fact, it does not require the elimination of a single warhead. Under this treaty, both sides can simply remove warheads from land-based or submarine-based missiles and from bombers. Both sides are free to keep every warhead so removed and to store these warheads indefinitely for possible redeployment. The only limitations that will bind the United States and Russia are the limitations on nuclear weapon delivery systems under START I, and that is at least until 2009. After December 5, 2009, when the START I treaty is scheduled to expire, it is not clear what will happen. At least in the case of START I, the delivery systems must be destroyed. As the Senate fulfills its constitutionally mandated role in the treaty process and considers whether to provide its advice and consent to the ratification of the Moscow Treaty, there are a number of questions about the proper role of the Senate in the treaty-making process. These are questions to which I know our managers--our chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee--have given a great deal of time, attention, and thought, and many others in the Senate have as well. Some of these questions are as follows: Do we want to agree to ratify a treaty if the executive branch does not clearly commit itself to submitting a substantive change in that treaty as an amendment to the Senate for its advice and consent? And do we want to approve a treaty where there is doubt that the executive branch could extend or withdraw from the treaty without even notifying or consulting with the Senate, without that guarantee, that commitment being written into a Resolution of Ratification? These are highly significant questions that apply to the treaty- making power and to the advice and consent power of the United States. I want to address those issues in the amendments that I have to offer this afternoon. The first amendment deals specifically with the question of whether the Resolution of Ratification should provide that the Senate must be notified and consulted prior to the withdrawal from that treaty or the agreement to extend that treaty by the President of the United States. Article 4, paragraph 2 of the treaty states that this treaty shall remain in force until December 31, 2012, and may be extended by agreement of the parties or superseded earlier by a subsequent agreement. Paragraph 3 of article 4 states: Each Party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may withdraw from this Treaty upon three months written notice to the other Party. These are somewhat unusual provisions, as are the administration's statements about them. Previously, extending a treaty was considered something that would require Senate advice and consent. In the seminal study written in 2001 by the Congressional Research Service for the Foreign Relations Committee called ``Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate,'' the issue of extending treaties is clearly presented: Modifying and extending an international agreement amount to the making of a new agreement that should be done by the same method as the original agreement. For treaties, this means with the advice and the consent of the Senate. In its article-by-article analysis of the Moscow Treaty, the administration asserts that ``Extension of the Treaty is not automatic and must be done by agreement of the parties.'' The article-by-article analysis continues, with the administration writing: Since such an extension is authorized by Treaty, it would constitute an agreement pursuant to the Treaty and would accordingly not be subject to Senate advice and consent. That is the extension issue. On the matter of treaty withdrawal, the administration's article-by- article analysis states: Unlike some other arms control agreements, this withdrawal clause is not tied to a party's determination that extraordinary circumstances jeopardizing its supreme national interests exist. Rather, the Moscow Treaty includes a more general formulation that allows greater flexibility for each party to respond to unforeseen circumstances. So the withdrawal clause permits either party to withdraw from the treaty for any reason short of a supreme national interest. The Resolution of Ratification addresses this issue of withdrawal or extension with a declaration numbered 6, which: Urges the President to consult with the Senate prior to taking actions relevant to paragraphs 2 or 3 of article IV of the treaty. So the resolution before us, and before my amendment is considered, simply urges the President--it is precatory language that says, Mr. President, we urge you, whether it is you or your successor, to consult with the Senate prior to taking the actions relevant to paragraphs 2 or 3, the extension or the withdrawal from a treaty. The declaration urges the President to consult with the Senate, but it does not protect the interests of the Senate because it is not binding. A President--this President or his successor--could simply decide to extend or withdraw from this treaty without notice or consultation with the Senate. The U.S. should not either enter into a treaty or withdraw from a treaty lightly and either action--either entering into a treaty, withdrawing from a treaty, or extending a treaty's operations--should be done only with the involvement of the Senate. We have to give our advice and consent to permit ratification in the first place. We, the Members of this Senate, have the responsibility to assure that involvement. That constitutional responsibility rests in our hands, and we should not leave that constitutional mandate and responsibility up to the discretion of the executive branch. We want the executive branch to consult, and we are going to urge them to consult in a Resolution of Ratification. The question is whether we are going to require that resolution. Barring some circumstances, which I will describe in a minute, we are going to require a chief executive to consult with this body, to give us notice, and to consult, not to seek ratification--that is a second-degree amendment which my friend from Wisconsin will be offering in a moment--but the proposal in my amendment is that we simply require there be notice and consultation of the Senate before there is withdrawal from a treaty which we have ratified, or extension of a treaty which we have ratified. That is the least we can do. That is a middle course, short of saying we have to ratify an extension or withdrawal, which I think is also an appropriate course of action which has been much debated over the years. Short of that, which it seems to me is a matter which is going to be of some debate between the executive and legislative branch, I think a middle course, which we all ought to be able to agree upon, is that a Resolution of Ratification require there be notice to the Senate so we can exercise whatever action we decide to take at that point--no guarantee that we would have to ratify it before it actually occurs but assurance we will be given notice and an opportunity to give our advice, or take whatever action we want, prior to the withdrawal from a treaty or prior to the life of the treaty being extended. The amendment I am going to be offering is very straightforward. I do not know if this amendment is at the desk. If not, I will send it on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, and Senator Akaka, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I will explain it at this point. This amendment is straightforward. It says that prior to taking any action to extend or withdraw from this treaty, the President shall provide not less than 60 days' notice to the Senate and shall consult with the Senate. Now, what happens if there is some national security need which prevents the President from providing such notice or consultation? The amendment foresees that possibility and has a waiver provision in case there is some unforeseen national security need that would prevent the President from immediately requiring to notify and consult with the Senate. So there is considerable flexibility given to the President if it is needed for national security reasons. There has been a lot written about whether or not the Senate must actually ratify a withdrawal from a treaty. There has been much debate on that subject. In a Congressional Research treatise on treaties, written in 1993 and then republished more recently with the same language, this is what the Research Service says about the issue of withdrawal from a treaty and the Senate role in that process, that the U.S. Constitution is silent with respect to the power to terminate treaties. The matter is not discussed in the debates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Briefly: While the Constitution tells us who can make treaties, the President shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. It does not say who can unmake them. As a consequence of the Constitution's silence in this regard, there has been some confusion of doctrine upon this point and a variety in practice. A little later on in this study, the Congressional Research Service says the same: Whether the President alone can terminate a treaty's domestic effect remains an open question. As a practical matter, however, the President may exercise this power since the courts have held that they are conclusively bound by an executive determination with regard to whether a treaty is still in effect. The same result may apply to a congressional termination, particularly if it is regarded as a declaration of war. So according to the Congressional Research Service, the issue of whether the President alone can terminate a treaty is an open question. This amendment does not intend to resolve that question. A second- degree amendment, however, will be offered which will address that issue. My amendment does not. My amendment simply says--and it seems to me this is a very modest amount of protection for the Senate's constitutional responsibility in the treaty-making process--unless there is some national security reason why you cannot give notice to the Senate that you are intending to withdraw or extend the treaty, give us 60 days' notice so we can take whatever action we deem is appropriate, so we can give consultation and advice on the question of withdrawal or extension. It does not prevent the administration from extending or withdrawing from the treaty. It does not--``it'' being my amendment--require Senate approval of extension, even though that is the policy and practice to date often as elaborated by that study. It does not require Senate approval of withdrawal from a treaty. It simply says the President shall notify and consult with the Senate before extending or withdrawing from the treaty. This amendment is consistent with what the Foreign Relations Committee wrote in its report about the treaty relative to the issue of consultation on arms control treaties. It is a very thorough report. The committee that we have before us, on page 22, says the following: The Senate and this committee have an institutional interest in the close observation of arms control negotiations and the successful implementation of resulting agreements. Past administrations have recognized that consultations with the Senate prior to taking actions relating to assigning, amending, or withdrawing from such agreements may avert serious disagreements. On the specific question of withdrawal, the committee report says: Should it become necessary for a party to withdraw from the treaty, article 4 provides for 3 months' notice of such a decision. Events can well occur between submissions of the annual report required in condition 2 that would warrant informing and consulting with the Senate. In any circumstance, the Senate would desire notification and consultation. So the parties, the two countries involved, must give each other 3 months' notice prior to the withdrawal. But relative to the Senate, the report simply says the Senate would desire notification and consultation. I could not agree more with that statement: ``desire.'' But it is not enough to say we desire a consultation. If we are going to protect the constitutional responsibilities of this body, we must assure our constitutional responsibility and the operation of treaties is going to be protected and our role under the Constitution is, in fact, honored-- not just honored in the breach but in the actual life of the treaty. I believe this is the minimum we should do. We should write into our Resolution of Ratification a requirement in the absence of some national security reason that the President, whoever the President might be at the time, do give us the notice and give us the opportunity to take whatever action or consult as we deem might be appropriate relative to the issue of withdrawal or extension of this treaty prior to the administration making that decision giving that notice to the other party to this treaty. The amendment is consistent with what the administration says it is willing to do. Secretary Powell stated: While it is the President who withdraws from treaties, the administration intends to discuss any need to withdraw from the treaty with the Congress, to include the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, prior to announcing any such action. That is a welcome statement of intent. We should incorporate that assurance. We should enshrine that assurance. We should embody that assurance. Intentions and administrations change. The obligation of this body to the Constitution endures. It is a solemn responsibility. It does not change. The intention of the President or a new President with new intentions changes. Language of the Constitution, relative to what this body's responsibility is relevant to treaties, is unchanging. This amendment simply requires notification and consultation which Secretary Powell and the committee indicate they want and would expect would happen. It simply assures that, in fact, in the absence of some national security need, which is unexpected, which would permit a waiver of the notice requiring that a President would notify this body before withdrawal or extension of a treaty would occur. The committee report concludes that: Declaration (6), while not binding on the President, is a formal request that the executive branch maintain the consultation policy enunciated in the Secretary of State's answer to the question--which I gave above that the administration intends to discuss. That is what the committee report says Declaration (6) provides, which is in the Resolution of Ratification. It is a request to the executive branch. That is not strong enough in terms of our obligations to the Constitution and to our responsibility relative to the treaty-making power. If we want to really assure what we are requesting is, in fact, part of the operation of this treaty, we should include in this Resolution of Ratification a condition which my amendment offers, which is that the President would do what the committee said it really wants and really desires and really urges, to use the words of the report, and that is to notify, consult with the Senate prior to taking action to withdraw from or extend a treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me thank my colleagues for their comments. Some of what they say frankly amazes me and startles me. How the administration could possibly walk away from this treaty because a Resolution of Ratification contains the requirement that they give us 60 days' notice before withdrawing, when in fact they say they are intending to give us that notice, amazes me. The administration has represented to the Senate by Secretary Powell that it is their intention to discuss any need to withdraw from the treaty with the Congress. That is their intention. How it can be suggested they are going to walk away from a treaty which simply puts into our ratification resolution and embodies what they intend to do, anyway, is a complete mystery to me. It raises the question, are they serious about that intention? Can't we take them seriously? Can't we assure ourselves that maybe the next administration, because it might not have the same intention, should be bound by us? Do we have to leave this requirement to give notice of withdrawal from a treaty up to the absolute discretion of an executive branch? That is not protecting the constitutional role and requirement and obligation and responsibility of the Senate. The question was raised by my dear friend from Delaware about what the word ``consult'' means in the amendment. It means the same thing as in the language which the Foreign Relations Committee has given us. In declaration 6 of the resolution, it says the Senate urges the President to consult with the Senate. We define ``consult'' in the way the Foreign Relations Committee defines it.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to the Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church for a half-century of dedication and leadership within the Detroit community. On March 15, 2003, people will be gathering in my hometown of Detroit, MI to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church. I am pleased to recognize the members of the Church for their many years of dedication and service to the community. The Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church first opened its doors on March 1, 1953. At the time, it was only a small congregation that met at a storefront every Sunday. In March of 1965, Greater Mt. Carmel relocated to its current location on Helen Street in Detroit. Later that year, the congregation's Radio Ministry was established and, 38 years later, can still be heard every Sunday afternoon. Over the last 50 years, Greater Mt. Carmel has become a valuable and well-respected spiritual and educational resource for its growing congregation. Under the guidance of Pastors Montgomery and Pierce, the congregation has expanded upon many fronts and continues to enrich the lives of many people. Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church has partnered with Focus: HOPE to assist with food delivery programs to the elderly and underprivileged. In addition, congregants prepare baskets and meals for homeless Detroit residents during Thanksgiving and Christmas to ensure that no one misses the joy of the holiday season. Greater Mr. Carmel is widely recognized for the multitude of essential services it has provided in our community. I take great pride in recognizing the efforts of the Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church throughout its 50 year history in Detroit. Their ministry attends to the entire person: mind, body, and soul. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting the accomplishments of the Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church and in wishing them continued success in the future.