Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize a remarkable individual whose efforts rank high among those that have marked the great history of this Nation. Eugene M. Lang is a dedicated philanthropist and supporter of education. His selflessness, sense of pride, and love for his country have been demonstrated in his commitment to the present and the future of young people all across America, through his I Have a Dream Foundation. This weekend, November 15-17, 2001, Mr. Lang and the Foundation will celebrate 20 years of education achievement. The path leading up to 20 years of education successes began on June 25, 1981. It was then that Eugene Lang, a New York businessman would return to his old elementary school, P.S. 121, in East Harlem to address the graduating sixth-graders. His original plan was to deliver a standard message that if you worked hard you would succeed. However, after arriving at his alma mater, he was told that his old school had changed--that 75 percent of P.S. 121's children would never graduate from high school, and that even those who did get high school diplomas would probably lack the skills needed for college. The startling news, prompted Mr. Lang to make an extraordinary promise to the sixth-graders that day. He made an impromptu decision and announced that if the 61 middle schoolers graduated from high school he would provide financial assistance to help them pay for college. This wonderful benefactor told the children that they must have a dream for the future, and that he would help them achieve it. Having made a promise, Lang went even further to help the P.S. 121 sixth-graders. He provided the children with support services and hired a social worker to work with them. With the involvement of education and social science professionals, Mr. Lang's vision evolved into the I Have a Dream program and the P.S. 121 kids became the first ``Dreamers.'' In August 1985, after 4 years, all of Lang's Dreamers were still in school garnering national attention including a front page story in the New York Times and a segment on 60 Minutes. This spurred Lang to organize the national I Have a Dream Foundation in 1986 and help launch a new generation of Foundation projects. Of the 54 original Dreamers who remained in contact with Mr. Lang's project, more than 90 percent earned their high school diploma or GED certificate and 60 percent went on to higher education, mostly at public 4-year or community colleges. In June 1991, the first Dreamers received baccalaureate degrees from colleges such as Bard and Barnard; others subsequently graduated from Swarthmore, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Hunter, AZ, and other schools. At least two-thirds of the P.S. 121 Dreamers have had 2 or more years of higher education and some continue to work on earning their degrees. Almost all hold fulfilling jobs and many have children who, they vow, will go to college. Today, the I Have a Dream program is a nationally recognized model that helps children stay in school, graduate, and go on to college or vocational education training and meaningful employment. The children, called Dreamers, participate in a year-round program of mentoring, tutoring, cultural exposures, and community service activities from elementary school through high school. Upon graduation, Dreamers receive financial assistance for either a college or vocational education. ``I Have a Dream'' has grown from one man's promise to 61 middle schoolers to over 175 projects in 58 cities, serving more than 13,000 children from low-income communities, including the Dreamers from my home State of Michigan. In Michigan, the Dreamers from Detroit have graduated while the Battle Creek programs support 11th graders who are close to achieving their dreams and in Port Huron, 7th and 8th graders are well on their way to fulfilling their own goals thanks to Eugene Lang's remarkable vision. Through his hard work, dedication and unshakable belief in our nation's children, Mr. Lang has helped many a dreamer fulfill his or her educational goals with his I Have a Dream Foundation. This kind and generous man is a role model to us all and I know that my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating Eugene Lang for his commitment and success with his I Have a Dream Foundation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into the Record a few facts about guns and children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every 7 hours a child or teen was killed in a firearm- related accident or suicide in 1999. From 1994-1999, an average of five children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents. In the same period, more than 2,100 children were killed in firearm accidents. In the 1990s, an average of 1,370 kids committed suicide with a firearm each year. More than 150 each year were children under the age of fifteen. In 1997, hospital emergency rooms treated four children with gun shot wounds for every child killed with a firearm. And a 1997 CDC study reported that the overall firearm-related death rate among children in the United States who are less than fifteen years old was nearly twelve times higher than among children in twenty-five other industrialized countries combined. These sobering statistics remind us of the importance of strengthening our gun laws to limit children's access to guns. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in support of meaningful gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I think it is particularly appropriate, given the very special relationship Senator Warner has had in particular with Les Brownlee, for him to lead off. I will just add a few comments to what the Senator says.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Madam President. I thank Senator Warner. When my career here is over and I look back on it, one of the real highlights will always be that I came with Senator Warner and that we have served together on the Armed Services Committee--both as chairman, always as friends, always with total trust, not always with total agreement, but always having our singular goal of a bipartisan security policy for this Nation. Senator Warner has been an extraordinary member of that committee. I watched him through the years as he has pulled together people with diverse views to reach a common goal. It was a pleasure to join with him as he recommended to the President the nomination of Les Brownlee to be Under Secretary of the Army. It is always a special day for the committee when one of our staff is nominated to a high position in the executive branch. This is a special day for us. We hate to lose Les. He has been of tremendous and inestimable value in the committee and to both sides of the aisle when we bring our bills to the floor. This is a committee that I think sets the standard for how we should operate in a bipartisan manner in this Senate. It has always had that tradition. Senator Warner maintained that tradition beautifully. I seek to emulate that kind of a role model that he and many Senators before him set when they were chairmen of that very special committee. Les will be leaving us. He will be crossing the Potomac. He will be back in his beloved Army. I can't think of anyone better qualified to serve in that position than Les because of the experience, which Senator Warner has outlined, and what Les brings to the job his commitment, spirit, and love for the Army. We always rely on our staff to give us their total loyalty and their total commitment. Les is surely a shining example of that. But first and foremost, that loyalty is to this country. Les has always shown that loyalty. The staff director for the majority, David Lyles, is also on the floor, as are other members of the Armed Services Committee staff. Not only have we looked to Les for unvarnished and straight advice, we have always looked to him and David Lyles when they were staff directors, first, for the majority, and then for the minority, to work together to bring the committee a joint bill that we could all support and that would help bring us together. Our staffs have not only given us advice and guidance, they have truly been instrumental in making this committee a bipartisan example of what security policy should be and what this Senate strives to be, whether it is in the area of defense or any other area. I noted what Senator Warner said about Les returning perhaps physically to the same office that he left. I understand he was the military executive to the Under Secretary of the Army. The very position that he was the executive to will now be filled by him. So there is a certain symmetry, and a certain wonderful roundness, to Les's confirmation. As Senator Warner said, we are now engaged in a military campaign. Colonel Brownlee was engaged in Vietnam. He served two tours in Vietnam with extraordinary distinction and heroism. He brings to this current challenge an experience that is invaluable so that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made in Vietnam, and so that we avoid any of the pitfalls that faced us as a nation in that war in which so many men and women served so valiantly, with so much honor, and with not nearly enough reward or recognition by their own countrymen back here at home. What Les brings to this current challenge is of tremendous value. I know, as Senator Warner said, that we speak for every member of our committee and for our staffs when we say how proud we are of Les. We are proud of not only what he has done for the committee, but we also are very confident of what he will do for the Army and for the Nation in his new capacity. We wish him all the best. We know we will see a lot of him. To him and his family, we can only say we are sad to see him go, but we are surely glad that he will occupy the position that he will assume. This nation is safer because it will be in his hands. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since the late-1980s, I have urged the mayors of the District of Columbia and Commissioners of the DC Taxicab Commission toward implementation of recommendations from numerous District of Columbia studies to replace the current taxicab zone fare with a meter system. According to the nationwide Taxicab, Limousine, and Paratransit Association, the District of Columbia is the only major city in the Nation where taxi fares are calculated by a zone system rather than a meter system. The use of the zone system is especially unfair to our great number of out-of-town tourists who have to cope with a complicated, confusing zone fare system with no basis on which to judge the accuracy of a particular fare. In my own experience, as a DC resident, I have encountered at least 10 different cab fares for the exact same trip to and from National Airport. A metered system would eliminate this problem. There is a lot of correspondence that has transpired over the years on this matter. I would like to share with the Senate the letter I recently received from Mayor Williams. I would also like to include earlier correspondence I received from Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I have kept informed at every stage of the taxi meter issue, as well as several letters from the Barry and Kelly administrations. There have been broken promise after broken promise. Mayor Williams' letter sets out a course of action. If it is not followed, I intend to bring this matter to a head next year--after two decades of broken promises.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, over the past several years, there have been a number of incidents of gun violence in our schools. Tragedies such as the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, have amplified concerns among students across the Nation that gun violence could happen in their schools. Many organizations have initiated efforts to help students cope with their fear. The National Crime Prevention Council, NCPC, for example, has developed a list of ``12 Things Students Can Do'' to stop school violence. Some of the suggestions include, reporting any crime immediately to school authorities or police and reporting suspicious or worrisome behavior or talk by other students to a teacher or counselor. There are also recommendations for students to manage their anger effectively and to refuse to bring a weapon to school, refuse to carry a weapon for another, and refuse to keep silent about those who carry weapons. The complete list can be found on the NCPC website at http:// www.ncpc.org/2schvio2.htm. Every student should read this list and consider involvement in the safety and security of his or her own school.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me today in congratulating the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit on the occasion of the golden anniversary of the Jewish Book Fair. Since 1951, the book fair has nourished the literary appetite of the metropolitan Detroit community. Along with the Book Fair, the Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit has enriched Jewish life and supported Jewish unity in and around the Detroit area for 75 years. The Community Center also strives to enhance life in the general community and welcomes all those in southeast Michigan to take advantage of the Center's facilities and programs. The Jewish Community Center's Annual Book Fair is the largest and oldest in the country, and its programs are offered free of charge to the public. This November, 40 authors of national and international acclaim will come to the week long fair. Participants at this year's fair will include a diverse range of authors from noted attorney Robert Shapiro, to the author of the Scooby Doo Mysteries, James Gelsey, to Dr. Ruth Westheimer. In addition, the fair will offer the largest selection of books by Jewish authors and of Jewish content available in the Detroit area. The organizers of the fair expect over 20,000 visitors. The Jewish Community Center has long enriched the lives of those residing throughout southeast Michigan. This year's book fair will surely continue this worthy legacy. I trust that my Senate colleagues will join me in recognizing The Jewish Community Center of Metropolitan Detroit on the Occasion of the 50th Annual Book Fair.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, until recently, the Bush administration appeared to be engaged in a headlong rush to unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty--the ABM Treaty--and deploy a national missile defense system. That headlong rush had some serious negative implications for the security of the United States and for our relations with other nations. If the United States decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty, it could: First, lead Russia to stop dismantling nuclear weapons, and to retain or eventually increase its multiple warheads on long-range missiles; Second, lead other nations, such as China, to speed the deployment, or increase the number, of their long-range nuclear missiles; and Third, strain our relations with allies and friends in Europe and Asia who recognize that the ABM Treaty has allowed nuclear arms reductions and has promoted stability for many decades. Those reactions to a unilateral withdrawal from the treaty on our part would be serious because they could result in more nuclear warheads on the territory of other nations and could lead to an increased risk of the theft or proliferation of such warheads or their materials to rogue states or terrorists. In addition, Russia and China could respond to unilateral United States withdrawal from the ABM Treaty by producing, deploying, and possibly even selling missile defense countermeasures and decoys to our potential adversaries. A spiraling competition of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures could then ensue. I have believed for some time that these serious negative consequences for our national security argued against our unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and I have long been concerned by the Bush administration's unilateralist approach to this question. As recently as August 23 of this year, for instance, President Bush declared, ``We will withdraw from the ABM Treaty on our timetable, at a time convenient to America.'' Then came the horrific attacks of September 11. To its credit, the administration then set out to build and sustain a broad international coalition, which includes Russia, to fight terrorism. Despite its unilateralist go-it-alone approach so prevalent before those September 11 attacks, the administration appears to have recognized that in a world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the United States is more secure when we work cooperatively with allies and with nations with whom we have common interests than we are if we go it alone. We have already witnessed that welcome new approach to foreign policy in areas as diverse as the newfound support for South Korea's effort to improve relations with North Korea, and in the administration's recent reversal and decision to join the international effort to improve the worldwide Biological Weapons Convention. This new approach has already influenced the administration's approach to national missile defense, the ABM Treaty, and our relationship with Russia, with whom the President seeks a ``new strategic framework.'' At his October 11 press conference, the President twice avoided giving direct answers to questions about whether he would unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The discussions between Presidents Bush and Putin in Shanghai gave some hope that the United States and Russia can reach agreement on missile defense and reductions in offensive nuclear weapons. Then, on October 25, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the administration had ``decided not to go forward'' with missile defense tests in late October and early November that might have violated the ABM Treaty. That is a significant change because the administration had said previously that we would not be constrained by the ABM Treaty but, rather, we would withdraw from it. Last week, we read in the newspapers that the United States and Russia are near agreement on an interim arrangement that would achieve three things: No. 1, allow the administration to continue with its robust program of missile defense research, development, and testing; No. 2, preserve the ABM Treaty; and, No. 3, set goals for reducing by some two-thirds the number of each nation's strategic nuclear warheads. The story quoted one unnamed official as saying: ``Testing will go on, but there will be no announcement of a U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.'' If the administration has, in fact, now decided not to unilaterally dismantle a mutual security structure before a new structure is put in place, it would represent a wise shift in U.S. policy. Presidents Bush and Putin would then have a genuine opportunity at their summit next week to make real progress towards a new security arrangement that permits both missile defense testing and significant nuclear arms reductions, and that would have strong bipartisan support in Congress. As I mentioned, on October 25, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon had decided not to proceed with four planned missile defense test activities because they might conflict with the ABM Treaty. But, in fact, prior to Secretary Rumsfeld's announcement, the Pentagon had already decided to delay three of the test activities for technical reasons wholly unrelated to the ABM Treaty. In addition, the fourth test planned for November 14 was not a missile defense test, but a Navy radar tracking of a satellite launch vehicle, which is not covered by the ABM Treaty. Confusing this history even further, back on June 13, LTG Ronald Kadish, the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, briefed the Armed Services Committee on the Defense Department's missile defense plans and informed the committee that, to the best of his knowledge, there were no ballistic missile defense activities planned for fiscal year 2002 that would be in conflict with the ABM Treaty. Then, on July 17, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, testified before our Armed Services Committee that three missile defense activities could ``bump up'' against the ABM Treaty, in his words, ``in months rather than in years.'' One of the examples was the use of a Navy Aegis SPY-1 radar to track a strategic ballistic missile. However, his written explanation of that possibility said plainly: Plans to use an Aegis SPY-1 radar to track long-range ballistic missiles are currently under development and are only at a preliminary stage. So after saying there were no tests planned that would violate the ABM Treaty, the administration then planned a series of tests that might violate the treaty. Then they changed direction for a second time on October 25 and said they would not proceed with tests that would violate the ABM Treaty. So why did the administration first strain to put these tests on the calendar and then strain to remove them from the calendar? My analysis is shaped by my firm belief that the administration has decided it would be unwise to withdraw from the ABM Treaty anytime soon. In a number of ways, this double reversal in its course may help the President at the upcoming summit, while simultaneously avoiding criticism from those who have forcefully pressed for withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. First, the administration looks more reasonable to the American people, the Russians, and the rest of the world, compared to their numerous declarations that they plan to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty. When the Secretary of Defense announced unilateral restraint on October 25--that is, announcing that we would forego missile defense testing in order to avoid violating the ABM Treaty--he made us look more reasonable and that may help pave the way to reach an agreement with Russia on missile defense issues. Second, the administration has simultaneously made the case that the U.S. missile defense testing program is already now being constrained by the ABM Treaty. This could make it easier to justify a decision to withdraw from the treaty at a later time; in effect, to serve as a prelude to withdrawal in case there is no agreement with Russia. Third, if, as expected, the administration reaches an agreement with Russia at the Crawford Summit that will permit its missile defense testing program to proceed, the Rumsfeld announcement would allow the administration to argue that the Crawford agreement removed the ABM obstacle to the administration's missile defense testing plans. That would appear to be a victory, showing the critics of the treaty that the administration succeeded in clearing away the testing constraints in the ABM Treaty. That, in turn, would make it easier politically for the administration to agree with Russia to maintain a treaty so loathed by those same critics and from which those critics are pressing the President to withdraw. If this tactic of straining to create premature conflict with the ABM Treaty and then straining to remove the conflict by deferring the tests helps the administration reach an agreement with Russia and helps assure them of political support for the agreement from the critics of the ABM Treaty, more power to them. If that is what it takes to do the right thing, so be it. The important point is to work cooperatively with Russia to seek an agreement that will enhance our mutual security. It looks as if that is the path we are on. I hope so, and I hope we can stay on it. Also hopefully, any new arrangement that emerges from the upcoming summit will be based on more than just the handshake of a gentleman's agreement. I hope the two leaders can agree on a new strategic framework that will include the following specific elements. First, any agreement should include a reduction of strategic nuclear weapons--as the President has said--``to the lowest possible number consistent with our national security.'' I agree with his assessment that ``the premises of Cold War nuclear targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenals.'' I would also hope that any agreement on nuclear reductions would be transparent, predictable and difficult to reverse. There is no benefit in creating a situation where we worry that it would be easy and quick for either nation to increase its nuclear forces significantly. We would be better served with an agreement that gives each side confidence that its terms are being met by the other side, and cannot easily be reversed. Congress should permit the President the flexibility to make these reductions. Current law prevents any reductions in our nuclear delivery systems below the needlessly high START I level. President Bush and President Putin are essentially moving toward a START IV, but Congress is keeping us at a START I, Cold War level of nuclear forces. Our senior uniformed military and civilian defense leaders have wanted Congress to remove these unnecessary restrictions for years. The Senate has already acted in this year's Defense Authorization bill to remove these restrictions, and I hope the House will accept the Senate position in the conference now underway. Second, the framework for a new security arrangement set forth by President Bush included the issue of reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear missiles. I would hope the two nations will explore a variety of steps that can move us in a more stable direction. There has already been good United States-Russian cooperation on data exchanges on missile launches, and we are improving our work on exchanging early warning data to reduce the risk of a false alert leading to a military crisis or a missile launch. We need to expand our cooperation and make sure that neither side maintains unnecessary and potentially destabilizing nuclear postures or practices. For example, both sides could agree to deactivate nuclear weapon systems that are awaiting dismantlement. As President Bush stated, ``the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high alert, hair-trigger status.'' Third, there is also a great need for enhanced and expanded cooperation on reducing the threats of proliferation. There is perhaps no more operationally effective and cost-effective means of reducing proliferation threats than assisting Russia in eliminating its nuclear and chemical weapons. Earlier this year, a task force led by former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler concluded that ``the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.'' I hope the two nations can continue to make great progress in this area, since much remains to be done. Finally, given the current anthrax attacks in the United States and our concerns about other potential biological terrorist attacks, we should be working much more closely with Russian scientists who have great expertise in biological warfare defense. They may be able to help us develop better defenses and vaccines, and also help us with the analysis of current biological threats. There is a unique and timely opportunity for major United States-Russian cooperation in this effort. In short, I hope that President Bush and President Putin will be bold in their effort not just to bury the Cold War, but to forge a new alliance or a mutual security agreement against the terrorist menace that threatens both our nations and the world. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, PAX is an organization that promotes practical, non-political solutions to the problem of gun violence. Asking Saves Kids or ASK is a national advertising campaign, developed by PAX in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics. The ASK campaign urges parents to ask their neighbors if they have a gun in the home before sending their child over to play. To help parents with what is a difficult question, the ASK campaign has developed a ``Parent's Help Kit''. The kit contains tips on how to ask the question about guns in the home, a sample letter to mail to other parents, and non-confrontational ways to respond to friends and relatives who may take exception to the question. The Help Kit is an invaluable tool in the fight to protect children from gun violence and I encourage parents to visit the PAX web site and download a copy of the Help Kit. The web site address is http://www.gunviolence.org/pdf/ASK__Kit.pdf.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Review of INS Policy on Releasing Illegal Aliens Pending Deportation Hearing.'' The upcoming subcommittee hearing will examine how the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, processes persons arrested for illegal entry into the United States outside ports of entry, as well as the difference between procedures used at ports of entry and procedures used outside ports of entry for persons seeking or obtaining illegal entry into the United States. The hearing will ask the question whether current procedures makes sense in light of the September 11 terrorist attack and our ongoing effort to defeat terrorism. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Linda J. Gustitus of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me today in congratulating the Young Israel congregation of Oak Park, MI, on completion of recent expansion of the synagogue's facilities. Since 1954, Young Israel has been serving the spiritual needs of its congregation as well as the community at large. From its humble beginnings, Young Israel of Oak Park has grown to become the largest Orthodox Jewish congregation in the State of Michigan. Originally founded as Young Israel of Oak-Woods, the temple served the communities of Oak Park and Huntington Woods. Six years later, Young Israel of Greenfield opened its doors in the adjoining community. For over a quarter century, the two temples offered a sanctuary where the respective congregations could meet. Then in 1997, in response to changing demographics and a desire to better serve their neighborhoods, the temples merged to create Young Israel of Oak Park. Soon after the merger, they embarked on an ambitious expansion project to provide more opportunity for communal celebration and prayer. In June of this year, the synagogue's stunning new sanctuary and social hall were completed. Today's congregation is not only a center of Torah study, but also a forum where young and old, rich and poor, come together to share their beliefs, desires, and fears. At the same time, the temple plays a central role in maintaining the stability and vitality of the Orthodox Jewish population of South East Michigan. For nearly 50 years, the Young Israel congregation has been a spiritual and social home for many in Michigan's Orthodox Jewish community. I trust that my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Young Israel of Oak Park on nearly a half century of growth and wish them the best in the coming years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Edwards be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I withdraw this amendment at this time, with thanks to Senator Kohl and also Senator Cochran. I have had a chance to speak with Senator Cochran, who has been so helpful on a whole host of issues in the agricultural area. While we had a minor disagreement in the area of missile defense, in so many other areas we have worked together on issues. I hope we can work together on this issue as it proceeds to conference. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will assist apple farmers who have suffered terrible losses in our Nation from fire blight and other weather-related and economic damage. It has broad bipartisan cosponsorship. In our State alone, apple farmers have suffered huge crop losses and damage due to several hailstorms which caused thousands and thousands of acres of apple trees to be affected by fire blight. Fire blight is a bacterium that has destroyed fruit trees across Michigan and across the country. Experts at Michigan State University anticipate that a quarter of our apple farmers have trees that are afflicted by fire blight and that then makes them susceptible to weather-related disasters. Many of our best apple producers have had disastrously reduced production and decreased revenues for a number of years. This amendment would provide vital assistance, not just in our State of Michigan but for apple producers who suffered losses due to fire blight or other weather-related disasters. Much of the loss to apple growers is done to weather-related disasters, but unfair trade practices have also played an important role in this decline of the apple industry in this country. The Department of Commerce ruled in 1999 that China had dumped apple juice concentrate in the United States and that dumping is still causing the suffering of farmers and apple growers because of those unfair trade practices. The unfair trade practices could not have come at a worse time for our Nation's apple growers who, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have lost about $1.5 billion over the past 5 years, including $500 million last year alone, due to a variety of factors including diseases such as fire blight. In addition to the large number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this amendment, the United States Apple Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation recognize the dire situation facing our apple growers, and both of these organizations have written to a number of Senators, voicing their support for this much-needed relief. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our growers have invested heavily in their efforts to reverse their economic plight. They are not seeking the establishment of a permanent direct assistance program. However, unless we take some interim action here, as many as 30 percent of American apple growers are going to lose their farms. So this ad hoc assistance which we are struggling to achieve is essential if we are going to avoid that calamity. The fiscal year 2001 agricultural supplemental appropriations bill that emerged from the committee included funding of $150 million for our Nation's apple growers. That provision, which came out of the committee, had to be dropped at the last minute if we were going to get a bill passed at all. So the Senate version of the bill had to be dropped, which included that assistance. Instead, the House bill was adopted which at that time did not include the assistance. What has happened subsequently is the following. The House bill now has $150 million for our Nation's apple growers, and it will go to conference whether we adopt this amendment or not. We have had discussions among ourselves, the sponsors of this amendment, as to what would be the best approach to take. I will yield the floor at this time, but I simply want to say this-- and I want to speak to my good friend from Wisconsin in a moment. Our goal is to achieve this assistance one way or the other--either on this floor or in conference--by our giving the House provision the final say in this matter. I am going to have a colloquy in a few moments with our friend from Wisconsin. At this time there are a number of other cosponsors of this amendment in the Chamber who I hope can now be recognized before that colloquy takes place.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, Cantwell, Stabenow, Schumer, Leahy, Snowe, Collins, Clinton, Kerry, Jeffords, and Kennedy.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor S. 505, a bill introduced by Senator Feinstein to strengthen the regulation of long-range fifty caliber sniper weapons. These weapons are among the most powerful, and least regulated, firearms legally available. Information provided by the Violence Policy Center demonstrates why Senator Feinstein's legislation is so important. According to the VPC's analysis, the ease with which fifty caliber weapons are purchased has made them popular with criminals and fringe groups. For example, in February of 1992, a Wells Fargo armored delivery truck was attacked in a ``military style operation'' in Chamblee, Georgia, by several men using a smoke grenade and a fifty caliber sniper rifle. Two employees were wounded. And according to the General Accounting Office, fifty caliber sniper rifles have been found in the armories of drug dealers in California, Missouri, and Indiana. In March of 1998, in my home State of Michigan, Federal law enforcement officers arrested three members of a radical group known as the North American Militia. The men were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways, utilities and public roads, and assassinate a number of Federal officials. A fifty caliber sniper rifle was among the weapons found in their possession. Fifty caliber weapons are too powerful and too accessible to be ignored any longer. Tighter regulations are needed. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Feinstein's bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from California would yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN. Again, I thank Senator Sarbanes for his great leadership, along with Senator Leahy, which made this possible.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 25, 2001, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing titled, ``The International Campaign Against Terrorism''. Witness: The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Washington, DC.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to conduct a hearing on nominations on Thursday, October 25, 2001, at 2 p.m., in room 385 of the Russell Senate Office Building.