Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Safety Valve Fairness Act. This bill addresses inequities in sentencing that were created by the passage of ``safety valve'' provisions contained in the 1994 crime bill. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws allow judges little or no discretion in making sentencing determinations. An unfortunate byproduct of this lack of discretion has been the imposition of disproportionately long sentences for some relatively low-level nonviolent offenders. Congress acknowledged this in enacting so-called ``safety valve'' provisions as part of the 1994 crime bill. These provisions allowed a narrow class of offenders, that is individuals with no criminal history, who committed a nonviolent crime, were not leaders or organizers of the crime, and who cooperated fully with the government, to petition the court for a review of their sentence. However, the safety valve provisions did not apply to offenders sentenced before the bill became law in 1994. As a result, individuals who have arguably been most impacted by the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that the safety valve provisions sought to remedy, have been unable to benefit from their passage. This bill would rectify this situation by making the safety valve provisions retroactive to allow first-time nonviolent drug offenders convicted prior to the passage of the 1994 crime bill to petition the court for a reconsideration of their sentence. The existing safety valve law is not a ``get out of jail free'' card. It simply allows prisoners to petition the courts for reconsideration. In order to have the mandatory minimum sentenced modified, offenders must first demonstrate to the court that they meet the criteria I mentioned earlier. It is up to the court to determine whether an individual is eligible to have their sentence modified and that a modification is appropriate in each case. I believe the original safety valve provisions appropriately restored discretion to the courts and it's only fair that the law be changed so it applies equally to all individuals without regard to when they were convicted. Making the safety valve provisions retroactive would impact only an extremely small number of cases. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, only 25 to 40 currently incarcerated federal offenders would be eligible to petition the court to reconsider their sentences. All of these individuals have served at least eight years in prison and many have served significantly longer. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to print a letter from the Sentencing Commission in the Record. The same considerations that motivated the Senate's original passage of the safety valve legislation apply to those offenders who were sentenced before 1994. Fairness dictates that all those offenders who meet the criteria set out in the safety valve law should have their cases heard and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Safety Valve Fairness Act. This bill addresses inequities in sentencing that were created by the passage of ``safety valve'' provisions contained in the 1994 crime bill. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws allow judges little or no discretion in making sentencing determinations. An unfortunate byproduct of this lack of discretion has been the imposition of disproportionately long sentences for some relatively low-level nonviolent offenders. Congress acknowledged this in enacting so-called ``safety valve'' provisions as part of the 1994 crime bill. These provisions allowed a narrow class of offenders, that is individuals with no criminal history, who committed a nonviolent crime, were not leaders or organizers of the crime, and who cooperated fully with the government, to petition the court for a review of their sentence. However, the safety valve provisions did not apply to offenders sentenced before the bill became law in 1994. As a result, individuals who have arguably been most impacted by the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that the safety valve provisions sought to remedy, have been unable to benefit from their passage. This bill would rectify this situation by making the safety valve provisions retroactive to allow first-time nonviolent drug offenders convicted prior to the passage of the 1994 crime bill to petition the court for a reconsideration of their sentence. The existing safety valve law is not a ``get out of jail free'' card. It simply allows prisoners to petition the courts for reconsideration. In order to have the mandatory minimum sentenced modified, offenders must first demonstrate to the court that they meet the criteria I mentioned earlier. It is up to the court to determine whether an individual is eligible to have their sentence modified and that a modification is appropriate in each case. I believe the original safety valve provisions appropriately restored discretion to the courts and it's only fair that the law be changed so it applies equally to all individuals without regard to when they were convicted. Making the safety valve provisions retroactive would impact only an extremely small number of cases. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, only 25 to 40 currently incarcerated federal offenders would be eligible to petition the court to reconsider their sentences. All of these individuals have served at least eight years in prison and many have served significantly longer. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to print a letter from the Sentencing Commission in the Record. The same considerations that motivated the Senate's original passage of the safety valve legislation apply to those offenders who were sentenced before 1994. Fairness dictates that all those offenders who meet the criteria set out in the safety valve law should have their cases heard and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week the Violence Policy Center, VPC, released a new study entitled ``The Drop in Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers in America.'' It found that the number of gun dealers holding Type 1 Federal Firearms Licenses, FFLs, a basic license to sell guns, dropped 74 percent from 245,628 in January 1994 to 63,881 in April 2002 or more than 181,000. The State of Michigan experienced the third largest reduction in the U.S., a drop of 75 percent from 12,076 dealers in 1994 to 3,016 in 2002. According to the study, the decrease is the result of licensing and renewal criteria contained in the Brady Law and 1994 Federal crime bill. These changes were designed to reduce the number of private, unlicenced gun dealers who operate out of their homes and garages. I voted for the Brady Bill and Federal crime bill, and I am pleased that they appear to be working the way Congress intended. The study also suggests that enhanced enforcement and prosecution of gun laws at the federal, state, and local level have had a significant impact. The drop in gun dealers is an important step in the effort to reduce firearms violence in the U.S. But despite this decline, private, unlicenced dealers are still supplying guns to gangs, drug dealers, and street criminals. In light of their findings, the Violence Policy Center proposed several recommendations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. One of the VPC recommendations is to close the loophole which allows dealers to shift firearms from their business inventory to their personal collections and then sell those guns without performing a background check. This proposal deserves serious consideration to evaluate whether it will help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those prohibited under law from possessing a gun. I urge my colleagues to support commonsense gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the Freedom of Information Act compromise that Senators Bennett and Leahy and I were able to achieve and which is included in both the Lieberman and Gramm-Miller amendments. One of the primary functions of the new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, will be to safeguard the nation's infrastructure, much of which is run by private companies. The DHS will need to work in partnership with private companies to ensure that our critical infrastructure is secure. To do so, the homeland security legislation asks companies to voluntarily provide the DHS with information about their own vulnerabilities; the hope being that one company's problems or solutions to its problems will help other companies with problems they may be having with their own critical infrastructure. Some companies expressed concern that current law did not adequately protect their confidential business information that they are being asked to provide to the new DHS from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. They argued that without a specific statutory exemption they would be less likely to voluntarily submit information to the DHS about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. However, the Freedom of Information Act and the case law developed with respect to it already provide the protections these companies seek. The language of our amendment protects from public disclosure the records of concern to these companies while preserving the existing rights of public access under FOIA. The amendment would protect from public disclosure any record furnished voluntarily and submitted to DHS that: No. 1, pertains to the vulnerability of and threats to critical infrastructure, such as attacks, response and recovery efforts; No. 2, the provider would not customarily make available to the public; No. 3, are designated and certified by the provider as confidential and not customarily made available to the public. The amendment makes clear that records that an agency obtains independently of DHS are not subject to the protections I just enumerated. Thus, if the records currently are subject to disclosure by another agency under FOIA, they will remain available under FOIA even if a private company submits the same information to DHS. The language also allows the provider of voluntarily submitted information to change a designation and certification and to make the record subject to disclosure under FOIA. The language requires that DHS develop procedures for the receipt, designation, marking, certification, care and storage of voluntarily provided information as well as the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality of the voluntarily provided records. The amendment defines the terms ``critical infrastructure'' and ``furnished voluntarily.'' ``Critical infrastructure'' is the same as that found in the USA Patriot Act. The term ``furnished voluntarily'' excludes records that DHS requires an entity to submit and that are used to satisfy a legal obligation or requirement or obtain a grant, permit, benefit, or other government approval. This means that records used to satisfy a legal obligation or requirement or to obtain a grant, permit, benefit or other government approval are ineligible for protection under this amendment. In addition, this language does not preempt state or local openness laws. Finally, the language requires the General Accounting Office to prepare a report tracking the voluntarily submitted information to DHS, the number of FOIA requests for voluntarily submitted information and whether those requests were granted or denied, and recommendations for improving the collection and analysis of information held by the private sector. It is important to protect the public's right to access information as the White House's recent national strategy for homeland security points out. The White House report also notes that any limitation on public disclosure must be done ``without compromising the principles of openness that ensure government accountability.'' I agree. We must move cautiously when enacting any legislation to withhold information that is not already exempt from disclosure under FOIA and national security classifications. The principles of open government and the right-to-know of the people are cornerstones upon which our country was built. We cannot and will not hastily and foolishly sacrifice them in the name of protecting them. This compromise achieves the balancing that is needed between openness and security. I thank Senators Bennett and Leahy for their work on developing this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation. No Senator serving today can appreciate what this body will be like when Strom Thurmond leaves at the end of this year because Senator Thurmond has served longer in this body than any other Senator in history. His 48 years in the United States Senate have spanned the terms of 10 Presidents of the United States, and he keeps pictures of all 10 of those Presidents on the wall in his office. Senator Thurmond's extraordinary private and public lives span the twentieth century. He began his political career in 1929 as the Superintendent of Education in Edgefield, SC. In 1933, he became a State Senator. In 1946, he was elected Governor of South Carolina. In 1948, while he was still Governor, he ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history. Senator Thurmond was elected to the Senate in 1954 as a write-in candidate, the first person ever elected to major office by this method. But true to a campaign pledge he made, he resigned in 1956 to eschew the advantages of incumbency before running successfully for re- election. In 1964, he left the Democratic Party and became a Goldwater Republican, presaging, or perhaps, ushering in, GOP gains in the South. He has served as a delegate to 6 Democratic and nine Republican National Conventions, a distinction I doubt anyone else shares. When I joined the Army Services Committee in 1979, Senator Thurmond had already served on the Committee for 20 years. His love for and dedication to the United States military goes back even further, though, to his commission as an Army Reserve second lieutenant of infantry in 1924 at the age of 21. He served with distinction in both the European and Pacific Theaters in the Second World War, receiving numerous decorations that include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star medal with ``V'' device, the Army Commendation Medal, the Belgian Order of the Crown, and the French Croix de Guerre. He landed in a glider on Normandy with the 82nd Airborne Division on D-Day, and went on to win 5 battle stars. In 1959, the year that he joined the Senate Armed Service Committee, Senator Thurmond was promoted to major general in the United States Army Reserve. During Senator Thurmond's tenure on the Armed Services Committee, our Armed Forces have faced challenge after challenge in Western Europe, Vietnam, the Middle East, the Caribbean basin, the Persian Gulf, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Through it all, Senator Thurmond has persevered in his unwavering support for our men and women in uniform. He steadfast commitment to our national defense has been a rock upon which we could all rely and has helped ensure that our military has always been ready to answer the call whenever and wherever needed. Senator Thurmond served as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 104th and 105th Congresses. I had the honor and pleasure to serve as his Ranking Member in 1997 and 1998. I know from personal experience how seriously Senator Thurmond treated his duties as Chairman and how hard he worked to be fair and even-handed with every Member of the Committee. I am sure that I speak for all of our colleagues in saying just how much we appreciate not only the commitment that Senator Thurmond brought to his duties as Chairman, but also his lifelong dedication to the defense of our Nation and to the welfare of the men and women in uniform. As the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee in 1997 and 1998, it was a great personal pleasure for me to work with Senator Thurmond in producing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 and the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. When Senator Thurmond leaves our Committee and the Senate at the end of this Congress, we will miss his warmth, his sense of humor, and his tremendous dedication to our national security. In my 24 years of service with Strom Thurmond, I have never known him to be anything other than unfailingly optimistic, always courteous, and ever-thoughtful of his Senate colleagues and their families. It is a pleasure to join all of my colleagues today in honoring and thanking this remarkable man, my friend, for his lifetime of service to his country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health brings to light disturbing information about the presence of firearms in a home. The study conducted by Drs. Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway entitled ``Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States'' concluded that in states where gun ownership levels are higher, a disproportionately large number of people commit suicide. According to the study, of the more than 30,000 suicides in 1998, 57 percent involved the use of a firearm. In states with more guns, people were more likely to commit suicide. The study found that in States with a higher incidence of gun ownership people were 1.6 times more likely to commit suicide than people in states with a lower incidence of gun ownership. Further, the Harvard study shows that people 15-24 years old from states with a high incidence of gun ownership are more than four times more likely to commit suicide than people the same age in states with a low incidence of gun ownership. According to statistics cited by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm. One step that can be taken to reduce suicides among children is to prevent easy access to guns for children. I cosponsored Senator Durbin's Child Access Prevention Act because it would do just that. Under this bill, adults who fail to lock up loaded firearms or an unloaded firearm with ammunition could be held liable if a weapon is taken by a child and used to kill or injure him or herself or another person. The bill would also increase the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and create a gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher organizations, local law enforcement and community organizations. This bill is similar to legislation President Bush signed into law as Governor of Texas. I support this bill and I believe it is a meaningful step in the right direction. It's clear that reducing child access to guns can save lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, in offering a resolution commemorating the achievements and retirement of Ernie Harwell. Ernie, a Hall of Fame broadcaster, will conclude his remarkable 55-year career upon calling his last game for the Detroit Tigers this season. For most of the last 42 years, Ernie has served as the voice of the Tigers, and I know that Detroit fans, as well as baseball fans everywhere, will miss Ernie's distinctive voice and irreplaceable baseball wit. In a city rich with baseball tradition, Ernie is as much of a part of Tiger baseball as the Olde English D and Tiger Stadium. For four decades, Ernie Harwell's unwaveringly calm voice has provided Tigers fans with an incomparable mixture of play-by-play description, baseball history, and sensible statistics. Much of Ernie's appeal grew out of the fact that he almost never lets emotion overtake him. He lets his words, his description of the game, paint a vivid picture of the events for the listeners at home. Ernie Harwell was born on January 25, 1918, in Washington, GA. As a boy, he delivered newspapers on a route that included the famed author Margaret Mitchell's home. Before launching his sports career, Ernie served as a Marine in World War II. He also acted in several movies including ``One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.'' He began his baseball career as a sportswriter and copy editor for the Atlanta Constitution. Luckily for us, he did not stay in that position long; in 1943 he left to become an announcer for the Southern Association's Atlanta Crackers. Ernie's skills were quickly recognized in Atlanta, and in 1948 he became the only announcer ever traded for a player! Branch Rickey, the General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, traded catcher Cliff Dapper to the Crackers to allow Ernie to break his contract. His tenure in Brooklyn was highlighted by calling Jackie Robinson's best season, 1949, when Robinson was awarded the Most Valuable Player award for the National League while leading the Dodgers to the pennant. The next year, Ernie left Brooklyn to go across town and call New York Giants games on the burgeoning medium of television. While there, he called Willie Mays's debut game in 1951 and Bobby Thomson's ``Shot Heard 'Round the World'' at the end of that season when the Giants won the pennant. Unlike Russ Hodges' who shouted ``The Giants win the pennant!'', Ernie stuck to his style and simply said ``it's gone'' when the ball shot off Thomson's bat. That was all baseball fans needed. After a short stint as the first broadcaster of the Baltimore Orioles, he was hired as the voice of the Detroit Tigers, where he has stayed for 42 of the last 43 years. Ernie quickly became a part of the Tigers family. ``If you do this job for a while in one city and you're pretty good, you become part of the family,'' he once said. ``They take you to the beaches and the mountains and the cottages, the workplace and the kitchen. That's gratifying, but it's sort of humbling, too, that people are that interested and they listen.'' Ernie called the 1968 and 1984 World Series that crowned the Tigers world champions. He was in Detroit for the careers of many baseball's greats, including the soon-to-retire Travis Fryman, now with the Cleveland Indians. Fryman, one of Ernie's favorite players in Detroit, presented him with an Indians hat and jersey during the Tigers' last trip to Cleveland. During that series, Indians officials named the visiting radio booth in the Jacobs Field press box the ``Ernie Harwell Visiting Radio Booth.'' The true devotion of Tigers fans to Ernie Harwell was made loud and clear when the Tigers' then-new management informed Ernie that 1991 would be his last season as the Tigers' broadcaster. They said they wanted to go with a younger and newer voice. Following a public outcry, the Motor City brought home its familiar voice in time for the 1993 season. He has been with Detroit ever since. Ernie's achievements have been recognized on both the local and national stage. He has been voted Michigan Sportscaster of the Year 17 times and is a member of the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame. In 1981 he was just the fifth broadcaster to be elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame. In 1988 he became a member of the Radio Hall of Fame and the following year he was elected to the National Sportscasters Hall of Fame. Ernie's talents extend beyond the microphone. He is an accomplished author and songwriter. He has authored such books as Tuned to Baseball, Diamond Gems and The Babe Signed My Shoe, and coauthored or contributed to several other books about the game of baseball. In addition to his literary works, Ernie has also had more than 50 of his songs professionally recorded. Considering that he has announced games over an unprecedented seven decades, Ernie will always be remembered best as a broadcaster; however, his personality and earnestness have endeared him to generations of listeners as a friend. To say that Ernie Harwell is beloved by the citizens of Michigan would be an understatement, which is why it comes with great regret that we are marking his retirement. Ernie Harwell once said that a successful play-by-play man ``should have the enthusiasm of a fan, the background knowledge of a writer, the reflexes of a ballplayer, and the impartiality of an umpire.'' I think he has exemplified these qualities, and he brought so much more to the game. Ernie Harwell is a Detroit hero and a baseball legend. While some of the Tigers' recent years have been forgettable, Ernie Harwell will never be. As much as we will miss Ernie, we wish him well as he begins his life away from the microphone. I join the citizens of Michigan in thanking Ernie Harwell for his decades of outstanding service to the Detroit Tigers and the broadcasting community. I know my colleagues in the Senate will join me in supporting this resolution in his honor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this Saturday the Detroit Police Department will begin a new gun buyback program offering a $25 gift certificate for gas and a $25 gift certificate for food to anyone who brings in an unloaded gun. Last year, a very successful similar effort took more than 600 guns off the streets of Detroit. During the past week, volunteers from the Youth Initiative Project, an organization dedicated to drug prevention and stopping youth violence, have gone door-to-door informing people throughout the community of the program. In addition, the Youth Initiative Project is a planning a Family Safety Fun Day to coincide with the gun buyback program that will distribute trigger locks and information on gun safety. There have been 14 young people killed by guns this year in metro Detroit. In response to these tragic shootings, the Youth Initiative Project held a town hall meeting at the Redford Branch of the Detroit Public Library on how to prevent gun violence. Some of the organizers were trained this summer at the Youth Action Institute, a three day convention in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Alliance for Justice. These same volunteers are planning three more town hall meetings in Detroit and then will move their program into local schools. I hope my colleagues will join me in commending the Detroit Police Department for this positive approach to getting guns off the streets and the Youth Initiative Project for their efforts to make the day a success and their commitment to educating their peers on gun safety.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, 1 year ago today, the openness and freedom of American society were used against us when terrorists hijacked civilian passenger jets and used them as missiles to demolish the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and destroy a large section of the Pentagon. The fourth jet hijacked that infamous morning, United Flight 93, may well have been headed for this Capitol Building before brave crew members and passengers fought back against their captors. One year ago today, over 3,000 people had their lives snatched away from them. The emotional trauma of those losses has affected each and every American. No State, no town, no community, no person has been left untouched. The despicable actions of the terrorists last September 11 have changed the world, not only because of what they have destroyed, but also because of what they have kindled in the American people. In New York City, at the Pentagon, in the skies over Pennsylvania and across America, 1 year ago today and in the days since then, we have seen the bravery, compassion, determination, and shared sense of purpose of Americans from all walks of life. As one writer put it, ``September 11 did not alter the American character, it merely revealed it.'' I would add that it did not weaken our spirit, it strengthened it immeasurably. We have, astoundingly, already rebuilt the mangled section of the Pentagon, and we have cleared Ground Zero in New York City. We have consecrated time and place and commemorated the heroic individuals who faced 9/11 head on. We are now engaged in a war on terrorism. It is unlike any war we have ever fought. It has no boundaries. It has no clear end. Our enemies target civilians. They are not soldiers. They are not warriors. They are murderers. We have taken the battle to our enemy. We have destroyed the Taliban and disrupted the al-Qaida network. Those who have not been killed or captured we have driven into hiding. We have liberated Afghanistan from the clutches of terrorists, and we have put the rest of the world on notice that to harbor terrorists is to invite disaster. In these sterner times, we have rediscovered that we are made of sterner stuff. Yesterday, I had the honor of helping to plant a memorial Red Ash tree at the Pentagon. That tree, and eight others like it planted at the site over the weekend, were propagated from parts of a champion Red Ash tree in Dowagiac, MI, named as such because it is the largest example known of its species. That champion is 450 years old and 21 feet around at its trunk. It spans the history of America. And, like the American spirit, it is indomitable. At yesterday's ceremony, I remarked that we Americans are as well- rooted as that champion Red Ash in Dowagiac, and like its crown, our Nation's aspirations reach high into the skies above. The tendrils of democracy root us; our aspiration is an unquenchable desire for freedom--for ourselves and for all people everywhere. Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.'' We have shared that dream with the rest of the world. For the better part of the last century, the United States and our allies fought a successful battle against the genocidal forces of fascism and totalitarianism. We defeated the Nazis. We won the Cold War. In the bloody struggle between ideologies, democratic governments triumphed over repressive regimes. This democracy of ours and our allies will prevail against the likes of al-Qaida because the overwhelming majority of people in the world want freedom and justice and dignity and opportunity. America remains a beacon of hope to the oppressed everywhere. Our current generation of service men and women, and the American people generally, will meet the new challenges and threats that we face as a nation as successfully as we met the challenges and threats of the last century. The people who perished 1 year ago did not do so in vain. We will always remember them and, most importantly, we will honor them by carrying on that noble struggle for what has been called the American dream but what is actually humankind's dream. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Detroit Free Press titled ``Michigan's 16 Legacies'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for an amendment that is being offered by the distinguished majority leader. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, originally proposed as a bill by Senator Baucus which I also cosponsored. It now provides much needed assistance to our Nation's farmers. While farmers across the country have faced tremendous losses during the past 2 years, those in my home State of Michigan have been among those who have suffered the most. Dramatic shifts in weather conditions throughout the growing season have devastated crops across the State. Some farmers faced early warm temperatures followed by freezing conditions while others saw torrential rains early in the growing season followed by long droughts; still others have faced drought conditions at the beginning of the crop year and heavy rains at harvest time. These conditions have devastated many of Michigan's prime crops. This year, cherry farmers in Michigan lost upwards of 90 percent of their crops, a level that threatens to devastate Michigan and the Nation's cherry industry give that Michigan produces over 70 percent of the tart cherries in the Nation. Additionally, 80 percent of Michigan's apple farmers have lost upwards of 40 percent of their crop. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit with cherry growers in Michigan and listen to them as they told me how this year's crop losses were the worst on record. In addition, approximately 25 percent of apple growers in Michigan and across the Nation are in danger of going out of business in the next 2 years, and in Michigan that means that our cherry, peach, and asparagus crops, which are often grown on the same orchards, will be greatly decreased. This year, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman recognized the atypical weather conditions that affected Michigan by designating 50 of the State's counties as disaster areas. Making matters worse, all of these counties were similarly designated last year, when Secretary Veneman designated 82 of Michigan's 83 counties as official disaster areas. While Michigan's farmers are some of the most innovative in the Nation, 2 years of statewide crop failure have threatened the continued viability of agriculture in Michigan. No one, least of all America's farmers, likes the fact that emergency agricultural supplementals have seemingly become routine. However, we must provide this assistance for without it many of our Nation's farmers will cease to be able to continue farming. I thank the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Montana for their efforts in drafting, supporting, and helping to pass this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for an amendment that has been introduced by our distinguished majority leader. This amendment, which has taken a variety of forms in the past several months, was originally proposed as a bill by Senator Baucus. I cosponsored this bill previously and support it now as it provides much needed assistance to our Nation's farmers who have suffered significant crop losses during the past 2 crop years. Farmers throughout the Nation have suffered great losses, and farmers in my home State of Michigan have been among those who have suffered most. Two years of statewide crop failure have threatened the viability of Michigan's farmers, and this amendment strives to address the losses suffered by growers in the 2001 and 2002 growing years. Over the past 2 years, some farmers faced early warm temperatures followed by freezing conditions. For others, torrential rains came early in the growing season and were followed by long droughts for some farmers. Still other farmers faced drought conditions at the start of the crop year and heavy rains at harvest time. This year, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman recognized the atypical weather conditions that greatly diminished crop production in Michigan by designating 50 Michigan counties as disaster areas. If that was not bad enough, Secretary Veneman designated that 82 of Michigan's 83 counties as official disaster areas last year. Michigan is one of the Nation's most diverse states in terms of the sheer breadth and number of crops grown in it, and growers of many crops have been affected by adverse weather conditions. This year, cherry farmers in Michigan lost upwards of 95 percent of their crops--a level that threatens to devastate Michigan and the Nation's cherry industry, given that Michigan produces over 70 percent of the tart cherries in the nation. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit with cherry growers in Michigan and listen to them as they told me how this year's crop losses were the worst that the industry had ever suffered since crop records have been kept. Additionally, all apple growers in Michigan have had at least 20 percent of their crops damaged this, and 80 percent of all Michigan apple farmers have lost upwards of 40 percent of their crop this year. Last year, farmers in just one area of Michigan, which is one of the leading dry bean producing regions in the Nation, lost 85 percent of their bean crop. Across the state, in the southwest corner of Michigan, labrusca grape growers lost 80 percent of their crop, and they suffered similar losses this year. While the losses suffered by bean and grape growers are particularly severe, they are not the only crops to have suffered drastic losses. Approximately 25 percent of apple growers in Michigan and across the Nation are in danger of going out of business in the next 2 years, and in Michigan that means that our cherry, peach and asparagus crops, which are often grown on the same orchards as apples, will be greatly decreased. Orchard communities around the country have been devastated. As farmers have left the business, small businesses and cooperatives that have been around for generations have also gone out of business, and local governments have lost significant tax revenue. This assistance will allow many growers to reduce debt and get private bank or USDA loans for the next growing season. This assistance for will give farmers the shot in the arm they need to recover from several years of low prices. Our Nation's farmers have not shared in the prosperity which many Americans have experienced over the past decade. No one, least of all America's farmers, likes the fact that annual emergency agriculture supplementals have seemingly become routine. Yet we must provide this assistance if we are to address the problems facing farmers throughout the Nation. Several growers have told me that the crops losses they suffered this year were so severe that without emergency assistance they will most likely lose their farms. This assistance is not the answer to the problems facing our farmers and rural America, but it is an important part of an effort to keep families on their farms. I thank the Senator for South Dakota and the Senator from Montana for their efforts in drafting, supporting and offering this amendment. Hay and Fescue Crops

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week the Violence Policy Center, VPC, released a report entitled Sitting Ducks detailing the danger of the .50 caliber sniper rifle as a terrorist threat to, among other things, refineries and hazardous-chemical facilities. According to the VPC's report, the .50 caliber sniper rifle, equipped with explosive or armor- piercing ammunition, is capable of hitting a target accurately from more than a thousand yards away making it well suited to attack fuel tanks and other high-value targets from a distance. The VPC report highlights the danger of a .50 caliber sniper rifle being used in a simple conventional attack with potentially disastrous results. The weapon is not only readily available, ``low technology'', but a .50 caliber sniper rifle is so powerful that it has been said to be able to wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of ammunition. Despite its obvious power, under current law .50 caliber sniper rifles are no more regulated than hunting rifles. That is why I cosponsored Senator Feinstein's ``Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act,'' S. 505. This bill would change the way .50 caliber guns are regulated by placing them under the requirements of the National Firearms Act. This action would subject these weapons to the same regimen of registration and background checks to which other weapons of war, such as machine guns, are currently subjected. This is a necessary step to assuring the safety of Americans. Mr. President, .50 caliber weapons are too powerful and too accessible to be ignored. Tighter regulations are needed. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein's bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this weekend the Lao Veterans of America, Michigan Chapter, will gather to commemorate Lao Veterans of America Recognition Day. This tribute is an excellent opportunity to show our appreciation of the Lao people's courageous efforts during the Vietnam War, their love of the United States and their selfless heroism. During the Vietnam War, thousands of Hmong and Laotian soldiers fought alongside the American forces as part of the United States Secret Army. In fact, the American public only recently learned about the Lao people's courageous efforts throughout the conflict in Vietnam. The Lao veterans served bravely and selflessly from 1961 to 1975 as they risked their lives to avert the spread of Communism throughout the region. They not only fought willingly and valiantly alongside United States forces to prevent the North Vietnamese Army from entering South Vietnam, but also proved to be invaluable in the effort to rescue downed American soldiers in the region. Their heroic actions saved countless American lives. The Lao Veterans and their families deserve our highest respect and gratitude. It is estimated that at least 35,000 Laotian people lost their lives during the Vietnam War. Over 50,000 Lao were wounded and thousands more are still listed as missing in action. Throughout the past twenty-seven years, many of the survivors and their families have immigrated to the United States and many Laotian families currently reside in my home state of Michigan. The transition to the United States has not been easy for many of these immigrants, but like many other immigrant groups they have grown and prospered in their new home. It is important that we demonstrate our appreciation for the courageous actions of the Laotian people. The Lao Veterans of America, Michigan Chapter, their families, friends, and supporters will gather on Saturday, September 7, 2002, to commemorate Lao Veterans of America Day. I know that my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting the Lao veterans' brave and heroic efforts and in recognizing their actions on behalf of the cause of freedom.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I opposed the Senate fast track bill even though it was an improvement over the House fast track bill. Unfortunately, the conference report we are considering today has gutted many of the improvements made in the Senate. I felt the Senate bill did not go far enough. The fast track conference report we are being asked to vote on today is a significant step backwards from what the Senate passed. I did not support the Senate version of this bill because it would not allow Congress to amend a trade agreement, even to improve it to make sure it was in the best interests of U.S. workers, industry, or agriculture. It also did not go far enough to encourage the adoption of internationally accepted labor standards or protect the environment. It did not ensure that U.S. products would have fair access to foreign markets in exchange for granting access to our markets. I cannot support a bill that is significantly weaker than the Senate bill. Granting the President broad ``fast track'' authority to negotiate trade agreements means Congress must adopt a law to implement any trade agreement on a straight up or down vote, without the ability to offer amendments. I believe in free trade. I supported the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, and granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR. But I am reluctant to give up the Congressional right to amend trade legislation, sight unseen. When we do that, we are throwing away one of the most effective tools in forcing fairer trade practices. This fast track bill is significantly flawed because it does not ensure that future trade agreements will protect human rights and labor and environmental standards. Nor does it require that fair trade practices are included in future trade agreements. I am disappointed that conferees dropped my amendment that would make it a principal negotiating objective of the United States to reduce barriers in other countries to U.S. autos and auto parts, especially in Japan and Korea where American autos and auto parts have been all but shut out for decades. Surely, one of our chief objectives should be increasing our products' access to markets which are closed or partially closed to us. Other countries have full access to our market for their autos and auto parts. We should insist that foreign markets are equally open to our autos and auto parts. The conference report makes it a principal negotiating objective to expand trade and reduce barriers for trade in services, foreign investment, intellectual property, electronic commerce, agriculture, and other sectors. Yet the biggest portion of our trade deficit is in autos. In 2001, our automotive deficit made up over 31 percent of our total trade deficit with the world. In 2001, our automotive deficit was 59 percent of our total trade deficit with Japan and 53 percent of our total deficit with Korea. I don't believe that the Senate should approve an omnibus trade bill without addressing barriers to our products which are the largest contributors to our trade deficit. Unfortunately, this flawed bill does not meet this criterion. Unfortunately, America's trade policy over the past 30 years has been a one way street. The U.S. market is one of the most open in the world, yet we have failed to pry foreign markets equally open to American products. Some of the trade agreements the U.S. has entered into have fallen far short of opening foreign markets. To ensure that future trade agreements better promote free and fair trade, Congress must not give up its ability to amend the legislation implementing those agreements. I have fought hard to strengthen U.S. trade laws to help open foreign markets to American and Michigan products such as automobiles, auto parts, communications equipment, cherries, apples, and wood products. Unfortunately, without the ability of Congress to amend and improve trade agreements we will not always get the best deal for American products, if past history is any guide. The North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, enacted January 1, 1994, is a good example of a trade agreement negotiated under ``fast track'' authority. It contained provisions allowing Mexico to protect its auto industry and discriminate against U.S. manufactured automobiles used cars and auto parts for up to 25 years. It allowed Mexico to require auto manufacturers assembling vehicles in Mexico to purchase 36 percent of their parts from Mexican parts manufacturers. It also extended for 25 more years the Mexican law against selling used American cars in Mexico, a highly discriminatory provision against U.S. autos. When NAFTA was presented to Congress, it was an agreement which discriminated against some of the principal products that are made in Michigan. I surely could not vote for the bill the way it was written, nor could I try to amend the bill because the ``fast track'' authority the President had at that time prohibited implementing legislation from being amended. Consequently, after NAFTA was enacted, the U.S. went from a trade surplus of $1.7 billion in 1993 to a trade deficit of $25 billion with Mexico in 2000. Over the same period, our trade deficit increased from $11 billion to $44.9 billion with Canada. Since NAFTA was enacted, the automotive trade deficit with Mexico has reached $23 billion. Moreover, between January 1994, and early May 2002, the Department of Labor certified that over 400,000 workers lost their jobs as a result of increased imports from or plant relocations to Mexico or Canada. These job losses occurred all over the county and in and around Michigan. For example, 27 employees from the Blue Water Fiber Company in Port Huron who produced pulp for paper lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA imports. One hundred and twenty-nice employees of Alcoa Fujikura Limited in Owosso who made electronic radio equipment lost their jobs to Mexico; 1,133 employees of the Copper Range Mine in the UP lost their jobs when operations were moved to Canada. Three hundred employees of Eagle Ottawa Leather in Grand Haven who made leather for automobile interiors saw their jobs moved to Mexico. The list of NAFTA- TAA certified job losses goes on and on. These job losses didn't result from a level ``playing field''. These job losses resulted from a ``playing field'' tilted against us. We've lost too many manufacturing jobs because our trade policies have been so weak over the decades. I've always believed that when countries raise barriers to our products that we ought to treat them no better than they treat us. Fast track authority makes it more difficult for Congress to insist on fair treatment for American products and equal access to foreign markets. Calling NAFTA a free trade agreement was an oxymoron. NAFTA protected Mexican industries and it gave special treatment to certain U.S. industries. For example, leather products and footwear got the longest U.S. tariff phase out, 15 years, and NAFTA included safeguard provisions against import surges in these sectors. Agricultural commodities and fruits and vegetables, including sugar, cotton, dairy, peanuts, oranges, also got a 15-year U.S. tariff phase out, a quota system, and the reimposition of a higher duty if imports exceed agreed- upon quota levels. It's clear that those who were represented at the negotiating table were able to strike favorable deals to protect certain industries and products. That is not free trade. NAFTA was not the only trade agreement that included specially tailored provisions for certain products. The trade bill we are being asked to vote on contains special provisions to protect textiles, citrus, and some other specialty agriculture commodities. I believe that writing labor and environmental standards into trade agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. Regrettably, this legislation does not ensure that international labor and environmental standards will be present in trade agreements. We need trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental provisions but this bill does not provide for it. This is particularly unfortunate given that Congress is already on record supporting strong labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. The Senate passed the Jordan Free Trade Agreement on September 21, 2001; it broke new ground in its treatment of labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. For the first time, a trade agreement required that the parties to the agreement reflect the core internationally recognized labor rights in their own domestic labor laws. The conference report does not require countries to implement the core ILO labor standards. It only requires them to enforce their existing labor laws, however weak they may be. It also specifically states that the U.S. may not retaliate against a trading partner that lowers or weakens its labor or environmental laws. This language undercuts our ability to negotiate strong labor and environmental standards in future trade agreements because our trading partners know we can't enforce what we negotiate through the use of sanctions and the dispute settlement process. American workers already compete against workers from countries where wages are significantly lower than in the United States. Our workers shouldn't also have to compete against countries that gain an unfair comparative advantage because they pollute their air and water and won't allow their workers to exercise fundamental rights. The United States enacted environmental standards that protect our air and water. We have enacted labor standards that allow for collective bargaining and the right to organize, that prohibit the use of child labor, and provide protections for workers in the work place. These are desirable standards that we worked hard to get. We should not force American workers to compete against countries with no such standards or protection for its workers. The Senate tried to improve this fast track legislation to address some of the concerns I've outlined. I supported many of these efforts. Unfortunately, many of the strengthening provisions added in the Senate were dropped in conference. The Dayton-Craig provision was dropped. This amendment would have allowed the Senate to have a separate vote on any provision of a trade agreement that would change or weaken U.S. trade remedy laws. Instead, the conference report moves rhetoric from another section of the bill regarding Congressional intent not to weaken U.S. trade remedy laws to the principal negotiating section. This is a much weaker provision than allowing the Senate an up-or-down vote on whether to weaken our trade laws or not. This conference report fails to address these concerns. The weak fast track bill we are voting on today is all the more reason Congress should not give up its role under the Constitution. We should keep all the tools available to fight for free and fair trade, including the Congressional right to amend and improve a trade agreement. To do less than that is not doing justice to our nations workers, manufacturers, farmers or small business.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may have an additional minute, I think a number of important points were raised by the Senator from Texas relative to the leasing issue. I hope that path will be followed, where the Department of Defense and the OMB will set forth some criteria, some guidelines, relative to leasing because there are some real risks when the leasing road is walked in terms of committing future resources. We hope we have protected the taxpayers in this matter by looking at the reprogramming request very carefully. A majority in the committee has voted and approved formally the way we do reprogramming; nonetheless, it has approved the reprogramming request. Senator Warner has worked with me and fully concurs in the decision that we made to get the decision from the committee. Usually, reprogramming is done more informally, but we decided that because there were some differences, we would actually convene the committee and get a more formal response and polling of the committee relative to the Department of Defense's reprogramming request on the four 737s. That is completed now, and the reauthorization issue will now be addressed relative to the 100 tankers. I thank my friends for the time. I thank Senator McCain for withdrawing his amendment, and I hope we are on the right track.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that relates only to the 737 lease which is the matter in the appropriations bill. There is no reference to the 767 lease, which is for the 100 tankers, in the appropriations bill before us. We need to address how that issue should be addressed. In the authorization bill, which this Senate has passed and which is now in conference, we added a provision which states that before there is any lease, the Department of Defense must obtain authorization for that lease. This legislation will not only require the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget to lay out the ground rules for any such lease but also to obtain the approval of the authorizing committees as well as the appropriators for any lease of Boeing 767 aircraft. That is the way in which I believe we have done the people's work in requiring the justification from the OMB and the Department of Defense for the reprogramming request relative to the four 737s and the way in which we will protect the public interest relative to any request for funding for a lease for the 767s and for the tankers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last year's Defense Appropriations Act contained a provision which authorized the Secretary of the Air Force to pursue multiyear leases for two types of aircraft, up to four Boeing 737 aircraft and up to 100 Boeing 767 aircraft. That provision exempted these leases from the requirement for congressional authorization in sections 2401 of title X which I thought was an unfortunate action on the part of the Appropriations Committee. That was last year. After the enactment of that provision by our good friends, the appropriators, the Secretary of the Air Force appeared before the Armed Services Committee and he made a personal commitment to us that he would not proceed with a lease without first coming to both the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee for approval of funding required for the lease. In the case of the proposed Boeing 737 lease, the four planes, the Secretary lived up to that commitment. The Department of Defense submitted a request for reprogramming to both the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee. The Armed Services Committee met earlier today, about an hour and a half ago, to consider the reprogramming request from the Department of Defense. I emphasize, this reprogramming request is from the Department of Defense. My immediate response, when we received it, was to ask the Department of Defense some questions and to ask the OMB some questions. The main question I was asking the Department of Defense was whether they considered this a precedent for any other reprogramming requests. The answer was no. The question I asked the OMB was whether or not the OMB supports this request and if so why. The OMB has sent a letter now to us indicating that they support the Department of Defense reprogramming request, and they set forth their reasons. I ask unanimous consent the letters from the Department of Defense and the OMB supporting the reprogramming request be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if one of the managers will yield 4 minutes to me.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, ``Children, Youth and Gun Violence,'' a report released last month by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, questions the effectiveness of programs to train children and young people to stay away from guns, or behave responsibly around guns. The report states parents should instead focus their efforts on keeping guns away from kids, except under supervised circumstances. The problem of kids gaining access to guns is not small. According to statistics compiled by the Packard Foundation, each year in the United States more than 20,000 children under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms of which more than 3,000 are killed. These figures emphasize the need to do all we can to keep kids from gaining unsupervised access to guns. I cosponsored Senator Durbin's Child Access Prevention Act because I believe it is a common sense step in this direction. Under this bill, adults who fail to lock up loaded firearms or an unloaded firearm with ammunition could be held liable if a weapon is taken by a child and used to kill or injure him or herself or another person. The bill also increases the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and creates a gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher organizations, local law enforcement and community organizations. I support this bill and hope the Senate will act on it. The Packard Foundation study brings to light the importance of common sense gun safety legislation. It also offers nine recommendations to policymakers and parents to prevent easy access to guns. I ask unanimous consent that the nine recommendations included in the Packard Foundation report, entitled ``Children, Youth and Gun Violence,'' be entered into the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Graham-Smith amendment. However, I would have preferred a prescription drug benefit added to Medicare, like the Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act of 2002, commonly referred to as the Graham-Miller proposal. The Graham-Miller amendment would have provided a comprehensive, voluntary, affordable and reliable prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. I voted for the Graham-Miller amendment, which was supported by a majority of the U.S. Senate in a vote last week. Unfortunately, the proposal required 60 votes and subsequently failed. On balance, I will support the Graham-Smith compromise, even though I have some reservations. The bill has three major points. First, the Graham-Smith amendment provides all Medicare beneficiaries access to a prescription drug card which allows Medicare beneficiaries to pool their purchasing power and receive drug discounts of up to 35 percent. The Federal Government would add an additional 5 percent subsidy to any negotiated price. Second, low-income beneficiaries would receive full drug coverage--paying only a nominal copayment for their drugs. Third, ``catastrophic coverage'' would be available to Medicare beneficiaries so that someone doesn't have to spend more than $3,300 in out-of-pocket expenses on prescription drugs. After that, a beneficiary would only pay a $10 copayment for each prescription drug. However, I do have a number of reservations about the Graham-Smith proposal. First, a prescription drug card is no substitute for adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program. I am a strong advocate of making prescriptions drugs an entitlement for every Medicare beneficiary who wants it. A prescription drug card can be uncertain, relying on a possible negotiated benefit that might not materialize and is no substitute for a guaranteed prescription drug benefit. I am also opposed to a means test for Medicare. Medicare's beneficiaries receive services because they have paid into the system their entire working lives. It is unfair for Medicare beneficiaries to receive different benefits based on their respective incomes. This sends the wrong message to our Nation's 40 million Medicare beneficiaries who rely on its stability and its application to all eligible seniors. So, with reservation, I will be supporting the Graham-Smith proposal as the Senate's best chance to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senator from South Dakota has noted, many soldiers returned from the Gulf War with a variety of symptoms that have no discernible cause. Although specific environmental exposures in the Gulf War cannot be ruled out as a cause, many believe that stresses triggering underlying conditions may have contributed to these illnesses. I hope that efforts will be made to ensure that this bill provides adequate funding to ensure the continuation of this important research.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5010). This legislation makes a valuable contribution to our Nation's efforts to enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines as well as their families, while continuing to transform our military forces to ensure that they are capable of meeting the threats to America's security now and in the future.