Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, are submitting a resolution recognizing the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan and its residents for their dedication to building a community that respects the environment, promotes social well-being and creates economic vitality. The City of Ann Arbor is hosting the U.S. and Canadian Municipal Leaders Rio+10 Preparatory Meeting for United Nations-sponsored 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. The 2002 World Summit marks the ten-year anniversary of the United Nation's Conference on Environment and Development, better known as the Earth Summit. The Earth Summit, held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, built wide political and popular support for environmental protection and sustainable development. Local leaders from across the world will gather at the 2002 World Summit to assess progress and examine barriers to the implementation of the Rio agreements. The Summit and preparatory meetings will generate new momentum for and renew our commitment to ensuring a viable future for our planet. In preparation for the 2002 World Summit, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is convening regional meetings to bring together local government leaders, technical experts and representatives of local government associations to evaluate local implementation of the Earth Summit's Agenda 21 and the Rio Conventions. The City of Ann Arbor was one of six cities worldwide chosen to host a preparatory meeting to assess opportunities and recommend strategies for accelerated action for sustainable development at the local level. Ann Arbor serves as a model for the important contributions that local governments make to sustainable development. Committed to protecting the environment while promoting social well-being and economic vitality, the city is purchasing alternative fuel vehicles, building alternative fuel infrastructure and educating residents about the use of alternative fuel vehicles in order to enhance energy security and environmental quality. The city is also developing an innovative Municipal Energy Fund to improve the energy efficiency of city facilities and provide community demonstrations of energy saving and renewable energy technologies that result in environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility. For these reasons, the city is designated an ICLEI's City for Climate Protection and a Department of Energy Clean City. Protecting precious land resources and ensuring clean air and water for residents are also important priorities of the city. Ann Arbor has a comprehensive program addressing environmental cleanup and restoration, park and greenway development, energy efficiency, transportation alternatives, infill development and wastewater management. I congratulate all the local leaders who will be attending the U.S. and Canadian Municipal Leaders Rio+10 Preparatory Meeting. Their cumulative local actions will improve our global environment. And, I commend the City of Ann Arbor, its residents and the University of Michigan for building a community that strives to protect our environment for future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to pay tribute to Suzy Joyce who passed away today Thursday, June 14, 2001. Her sudden and untimely death leaves a void that for those who knew and loved Suzy will never be filled. Born Verna Joyce, but called Suzy by those knew her, in North Carolina on September 15, 1957, Suzy began work in the United States Senate over two decades ago as a cashier in the Senate Restaurants. Since 1986, I had the privilege of having Suzy on my staff. During her tenure on my staff, she was a model employee whose expertise, dedication, diligence and attention to detail enabled my office to respond to constituents efficiently and effectively. Suzy played a vital role in advancing and modernizing our office's mail system. She arrived in the era of carbon copies and mimeograph machines, but she helped implement a new mail system that responds to the needs of the computer era when letters are as likely to arrive by email as they are by the US Postal Service. While my constituents may have never had the opportunity to personally meet Suzy, tens of thousands of them received constituent services, United States flags flown over the Capital and heard from me by mail because of her organization and efforts. Suzy was more than a dedicated employee. She was a warm and friendly woman whose infectious smile, sense of humor and love for the Pittsburgh Steelers filled our office, and earned her friends throughout the Senate. It seems as if everyone knew Suzy. She was the one who welcomed interns and told my staffers, who are prone to working long days, to remember to call their parents. When members of my staff went to the Senate Printing Office or the Architect of the Capitol, they were often admonished with orders to say ``Hello to Suzy.'' I wish that more of my constituents had the opportunity to meet Suzy and her husband Rick. The two of them worked together in the United States Senate, and this is a better place because of them. Suzy and Rick's dedication extended far beyond work. They were dedicated to each other, their three children, their family and their God. Together, they embodied the American values of hard-work, faith and loyalty. Suzy and Rick, both natives of North Carolina, recently celebrated another anniversary together. Their love for each other was evident to all. Rick works as the Facilities Supervisor under the Office of the Superintendent, and Suzy would come into work with him, hours before our office opened so that she could ride to and from work with him. After work, Suzy frequently volunteered at her church where she was a regular attendee and an important contributor. She is survived by three wonderful daughters: Andrea, Candice and Dawn of whom she was extremely proud and talked about frequently. One never is able to prepare for the death of a friend or loved one. However, I trust that the friends, family and faith that were so important to Suzy in her life will continue to sustain her family in the days, months and years ahead. I and my staff will keep Suzy Joyce and her family in our thoughts and prayers. I know that the Senate family joins me in offering their condolences to the family of Verna ``Suzy'' Joyce on the occasion of their great loss. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Stabenow, in introducing 3 pieces of legislation to help protect the nation's largest source of fresh water--the Great Lakes. The first bill, The Great Lakes Water Protection Act, will prevent new oil and gas drilling beneath the lakes until the EPA, in cooperation with the National Academy of Science, the Great Lakes States, and other interested parties, is able to study the impacts that drilling may have to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water, and other coastal land-use activities. It is just not worth taking a chance on harming this critical resource for a small amount of oil and natural gas. Slant drilling, while a more environmentally friendly method than the traditional drilling methods, is imperfect. Wells can blow out and equipment can be damaged. Because just one quart of oil can contaminate up to two million gallons of drinking water, the risk of drilling is especially acute when these wells are located directly next to the Great Lakes which serve as the source of drinking water for so many communities. According to a recent study by the Lake Michigan Federation, the normal slant drilling process could result in ground water contamination, surface water pollution, and the release of hazardous gases. If an accident were to occur, an oil or natural gas spill could impact Michigan's sensitive wetlands, sand dunes, and wildlife habitat. Oil leaked or washed into the Lakes would affect fish species, especially in the sensitive near-shore spawning and nursery areas, detrimentally impacting the Great Lakes commercial and recreational fisheries. We surely need to thoroughly review all possible risks before making decisions that could chance these irreplaceable natural resources. Additionally, there are existing human activities along the Great Lakes' coasts, and we need to find out how drilling activities could impact those communities. Even advocates of drilling admit that some damage at shore-line drilling sites is inevitable. Drilling requires the construction of new infrastructure such as drilling rigs and sites, storage tanks, and new pipelines. These facilities can deter tourism and hinder local community development. Our pristine Great Lakes coastline is valuable to the tourism industry in Michigan while the Great Lakes' energy potential is very small. Since the first U.S. well was drilled under Lake Michigan in 1979, only 438,000 barrels of oil and about 17.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas have been produced. This is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the Nation's annual energy consumption of 20 million barrels of oil per day and 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. In contrast, Great Lakes recreational fishers spend $1.4 billion annually on gear and lake trips. The thousands of hikers, birdwatchers, beach-goers and other recreational users enjoying the Great Lakes shoreline and coastal waters contribute millions of dollars to local economies. I believe that if this country should focus more on advancing alternative fuels. In Michigan, we can advance environmental quality and economic growth by supporting research into advanced technology vehicles. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. There is simply too much at stake to risk the Great Lakes and their shoreline. The second piece of legislation, The Great Lakes Water Protection Act, prohibits bulk fresh water from the Great Lakes basin to be exported from the United States until a conservation standard governing withdrawals, diversion, and use of Great Lakes water is in place. The Great Lakes hold nearly 20% of the world's supply of freshwater. As this legislation clearly states, the Great Lakes Governors currently have the authority to veto proposals to divert water from the Great Lakes outside the basin. However, the existing process over out- of-basin water diversions may be subject to an international trade dispute. So as the global water demand doubles every 21 years, we need a back up conservation strategy. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the National Park Service to complete a resource study outlining options for the preservation of lighthouses in the Great Lakes. There are 120 Michigan lighthouses, and approximately 70 of these structures will be surplus property over the next 10 years. Under legislation that I sponsored last year, these historic treasures will be smoothly transferred from government ownership, and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, is authorized to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program. The bill we are introducing today reinforces the government's commitment to preserving these historic structures. Lastly, I am cosponsoring the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act to attempt to control one of the most expensive and environmentally dangerous problems facing the Great Lakes-aquatic nuisance species. Nearly 150 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidently introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. Most of the recent invasive species have been transported to the Lakes in commercial ships' ballast water. In 1990 and 1996 Congress enacted legislation which slowed down the introduction of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes, however, approximately 1 new non-native organism enters the Lakes each year. This legislation that I am cosponsoring is designed to prevent these invaders from coming into the Great Lakes and to control the movement of organisms once they have been introduced into the Lakes. The Coast Guard needs to design a standard for vessels capable of discharging ballast water in the Great Lakes that ensures that ballast water containing aquatic species are not discharged in the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard needs to establish a Ballast Treatment Performance Standard which will provide flexibility for industry to utilize and improve technology in order to meet that standard in whatever manner they want. Additionally, this legislation authorizes up to $100 million for invasive species and ballast water technologies research grants. I encourage the rest of my colleagues to support legislative efforts to control aquatic nuisance species. In 2002, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 expires, and Congress will be tasked with improving and reauthorizing this legislation. I believe that a national reauthorization is important to create a unified approach rather than forcing the States to enact individual standards for ships in an attempt to control aquatic nuisance species. However, if efforts to reauthorize a national program should stall, I believe that this legislation will help protect the Great Lakes from aquatic invaders.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Stabenow, in introducing 3 pieces of legislation to help protect the nation's largest source of fresh water--the Great Lakes. The first bill, The Great Lakes Water Protection Act, will prevent new oil and gas drilling beneath the lakes until the EPA, in cooperation with the National Academy of Science, the Great Lakes States, and other interested parties, is able to study the impacts that drilling may have to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water, and other coastal land-use activities. It is just not worth taking a chance on harming this critical resource for a small amount of oil and natural gas. Slant drilling, while a more environmentally friendly method than the traditional drilling methods, is imperfect. Wells can blow out and equipment can be damaged. Because just one quart of oil can contaminate up to two million gallons of drinking water, the risk of drilling is especially acute when these wells are located directly next to the Great Lakes which serve as the source of drinking water for so many communities. According to a recent study by the Lake Michigan Federation, the normal slant drilling process could result in ground water contamination, surface water pollution, and the release of hazardous gases. If an accident were to occur, an oil or natural gas spill could impact Michigan's sensitive wetlands, sand dunes, and wildlife habitat. Oil leaked or washed into the Lakes would affect fish species, especially in the sensitive near-shore spawning and nursery areas, detrimentally impacting the Great Lakes commercial and recreational fisheries. We surely need to thoroughly review all possible risks before making decisions that could chance these irreplaceable natural resources. Additionally, there are existing human activities along the Great Lakes' coasts, and we need to find out how drilling activities could impact those communities. Even advocates of drilling admit that some damage at shore-line drilling sites is inevitable. Drilling requires the construction of new infrastructure such as drilling rigs and sites, storage tanks, and new pipelines. These facilities can deter tourism and hinder local community development. Our pristine Great Lakes coastline is valuable to the tourism industry in Michigan while the Great Lakes' energy potential is very small. Since the first U.S. well was drilled under Lake Michigan in 1979, only 438,000 barrels of oil and about 17.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas have been produced. This is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the Nation's annual energy consumption of 20 million barrels of oil per day and 65 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. In contrast, Great Lakes recreational fishers spend $1.4 billion annually on gear and lake trips. The thousands of hikers, birdwatchers, beach-goers and other recreational users enjoying the Great Lakes shoreline and coastal waters contribute millions of dollars to local economies. I believe that if this country should focus more on advancing alternative fuels. In Michigan, we can advance environmental quality and economic growth by supporting research into advanced technology vehicles. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. There is simply too much at stake to risk the Great Lakes and their shoreline. The second piece of legislation, The Great Lakes Water Protection Act, prohibits bulk fresh water from the Great Lakes basin to be exported from the United States until a conservation standard governing withdrawals, diversion, and use of Great Lakes water is in place. The Great Lakes hold nearly 20% of the world's supply of freshwater. As this legislation clearly states, the Great Lakes Governors currently have the authority to veto proposals to divert water from the Great Lakes outside the basin. However, the existing process over out- of-basin water diversions may be subject to an international trade dispute. So as the global water demand doubles every 21 years, we need a back up conservation strategy. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the National Park Service to complete a resource study outlining options for the preservation of lighthouses in the Great Lakes. There are 120 Michigan lighthouses, and approximately 70 of these structures will be surplus property over the next 10 years. Under legislation that I sponsored last year, these historic treasures will be smoothly transferred from government ownership, and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, is authorized to establish a historic lighthouse preservation program. The bill we are introducing today reinforces the government's commitment to preserving these historic structures. Lastly, I am cosponsoring the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act to attempt to control one of the most expensive and environmentally dangerous problems facing the Great Lakes-aquatic nuisance species. Nearly 150 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidently introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. Most of the recent invasive species have been transported to the Lakes in commercial ships' ballast water. In 1990 and 1996 Congress enacted legislation which slowed down the introduction of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes, however, approximately 1 new non-native organism enters the Lakes each year. This legislation that I am cosponsoring is designed to prevent these invaders from coming into the Great Lakes and to control the movement of organisms once they have been introduced into the Lakes. The Coast Guard needs to design a standard for vessels capable of discharging ballast water in the Great Lakes that ensures that ballast water containing aquatic species are not discharged in the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard needs to establish a Ballast Treatment Performance Standard which will provide flexibility for industry to utilize and improve technology in order to meet that standard in whatever manner they want. Additionally, this legislation authorizes up to $100 million for invasive species and ballast water technologies research grants. I encourage the rest of my colleagues to support legislative efforts to control aquatic nuisance species. In 2002, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 expires, and Congress will be tasked with improving and reauthorizing this legislation. I believe that a national reauthorization is important to create a unified approach rather than forcing the States to enact individual standards for ships in an attempt to control aquatic nuisance species. However, if efforts to reauthorize a national program should stall, I believe that this legislation will help protect the Great Lakes from aquatic invaders.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill that seeks to provide much needed assistance to our Nation's apple farmers. In the past four years, due to weather related disasters, disease and the dumping of Chinese apple juice concentrate, our Nation's apple producers have lost over $1.4 billion dollars in revenue. This has left many growers on the brink of financial disaster. In the past three years, Congress has assisted America's farmers by providing substantial assistance to agricultural producers. The U.S. apple industry boasts a long history of self-sufficiency and has long operated without relying upon federally funded farm programs. Last year, Congress, recognized the problems facing apple growers and for the first time ever, provided direct market loss assistance to apple growers. Even with this aid, a significant percentage of apply growers are expected to go out of the business this year. Without some type of financial relief, the numbers could indeed be staggering. Studies by economists at Michigan State University estimated U.S. apple growers will lose nearly $500 million this year alone. Such losses threaten to devastate the entire U.S. apple industry. The Michigan Farm Bureau states that the number of those leaving the business in some States is running as high as 30 percent. Assistance is desperately needed to help stabilize not only the production sector but entire communities and subsidiary businesses that are dependent on the apple industry, not only in Michigan, but nationwide. The $250 million in assistance we are proposing will help those who depend on the apple industry for their livelihood, and ensure that American apple growers will be able to provide the United States and the world with a quality product that is second to none.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act with Senator Stabenow and Senator Durbin. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations within one year to address the safety concerns that arise when trains block traffic at railroad crossings. Sixteen States and many more municipalities have passed statutes and ordinances limiting the amount of time a train is allowed to stop at and thus block a railroad grade crossing. There are specific safety reasons for limiting the time roadways can be blocked by trains. However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan struck down a Michigan statute regulating the length of time that a train may block a roadway, opening up the safety issues that my bill will address. The ordinance in question prohibited trains from obstructing free passage of any street for longer than five minutes in order to minimize safety problems within communities. The court concluded that the ordinance was preempted by the Federal Railway Safety Act, FRSA. Unfortunately, there is no Federal regulation addressing the length of time a train may block a grade crossing. That means the State of Michigan and all of its political subdivisions are now without the authority to provide this regulation and have no other remedy. They are urging the passage of Federal legislation to regulate the length of time a train may block a roadway in the interest of public health and safety. They are calling for Federal action to give them relief from the 45 minutes or more that trains are currently sitting in railway crossings and blocking their roadways. Believe it or not, trains actually stop in the middle of intersections for 45 minutes or longer at a time. I have been given examples of trains in Michigan that have sat for hours at crossings. You can imagine the ramifications of major intersections being completely blocked for so long. This nationwide problem is amplified in Southeast Michigan because of the number of rail lines in the region. For example, this lack of regulation is causing a lot of problems for some of the older municipalities in Michigan as train tracks literally cris-cross their cities. For instance, in Trenton, MI, there is an entire neighborhood that is bordered on one side by water on two sides by train tracks, forming a triangle. If two trains block the tracks at the same time, which has happened, the residents are literally trapped. Worse than the residents being trapped is the fact that ambulances, police and fire trucks are trapped out of town, or delayed in getting to their emergency destinations. Unless we take action and require the FRA to act, communities with rail crossings are vulnerable. The problems range from the problem of traffic congestion and delays to the literal inability of emergency vehicles to get in or out of a community. Many Michigan cities have railroad crossings at a number of important intersections that, when closed by trains, severely limits their ability to provide emergency service to its residents. Medical emergency crews in Michigan have specifically complained to me that they face the daily problem of trains blocking road traffic. They tell me this has the potential to put in jeopardy their patients best chance of recovery. As we all understand, time is of the essence in emergency situations. Trains blocking railroad crossings also pose a threat for pedestrians and children who may be tempted to crawl under or between rail cars during long waits in order get to or from school. Vehicles may also be tempted to speed around a train before it gets to the crossing in order to avoid long delays. Both situations unnecessarily put lives in danger. Michigan businesses have also complained to me that trains have blocked important roads for extensive periods of time during plant shift changes. This has resulted in unnecessary lost wages and lost production when employees cannot get to work. Dozens of Michigan's towns and cities have pleaded for Federal action to resolve this intolerable situation and have even passed resolutions in support of this legislation. They include: Charter Township of Huron, City of Lincoln Park, City of Plymouth, City of Riverview, City of Rockwood, City of Southgate, City of Trenton, City of Westland, to name only a few. Our community leaders believe it is essential to the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of their cities that blocked crossings be kept to a reasonable minimum, so that emergency vehicles may have ready access to their citizens. The legislation I am introducing today will give the Federal Railroad Administration the push it needs to enact much needed regulations to address this safety problem. My bill would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations addressing these safety concerns. It is a reasonable approach with nothing controversial or complicated about it. Congressman Dingell has sponsored an identical bill in the House. We need to stop the delays and remove potentially dangerous situations by minimizing how long trains can stop at grade crossings. Its time to address this lingering safety concern and reduce the risk to motorists, pedestrians, and citizens at large. This is a very simple bill that aims to stop the abuse of trains unnecessarily blocking railroad crossings. It simply directs the FRA, the agency tasked with overseeing railroad safety, to take action in this area. I hope this legislation will be enacted quickly. The Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act has the support of local mayors, fire and police departments and emergency organizations. There is currently no Federal limit to how long trains can sit and block railroad crossings. This bill would require that one be instituted, in the name of the public's safety. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill that seeks to provide much needed assistance to our Nation's apple farmers. In the past four years, due to weather related disasters, disease and the dumping of Chinese apple juice concentrate, our Nation's apple producers have lost over $1.4 billion dollars in revenue. This has left many growers on the brink of financial disaster. In the past three years, Congress has assisted America's farmers by providing substantial assistance to agricultural producers. The U.S. apple industry boasts a long history of self-sufficiency and has long operated without relying upon federally funded farm programs. Last year, Congress, recognized the problems facing apple growers and for the first time ever, provided direct market loss assistance to apple growers. Even with this aid, a significant percentage of apply growers are expected to go out of the business this year. Without some type of financial relief, the numbers could indeed be staggering. Studies by economists at Michigan State University estimated U.S. apple growers will lose nearly $500 million this year alone. Such losses threaten to devastate the entire U.S. apple industry. The Michigan Farm Bureau states that the number of those leaving the business in some States is running as high as 30 percent. Assistance is desperately needed to help stabilize not only the production sector but entire communities and subsidiary businesses that are dependent on the apple industry, not only in Michigan, but nationwide. The $250 million in assistance we are proposing will help those who depend on the apple industry for their livelihood, and ensure that American apple growers will be able to provide the United States and the world with a quality product that is second to none.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act with Senator Stabenow and Senator Durbin. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations within one year to address the safety concerns that arise when trains block traffic at railroad crossings. Sixteen States and many more municipalities have passed statutes and ordinances limiting the amount of time a train is allowed to stop at and thus block a railroad grade crossing. There are specific safety reasons for limiting the time roadways can be blocked by trains. However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan struck down a Michigan statute regulating the length of time that a train may block a roadway, opening up the safety issues that my bill will address. The ordinance in question prohibited trains from obstructing free passage of any street for longer than five minutes in order to minimize safety problems within communities. The court concluded that the ordinance was preempted by the Federal Railway Safety Act, FRSA. Unfortunately, there is no Federal regulation addressing the length of time a train may block a grade crossing. That means the State of Michigan and all of its political subdivisions are now without the authority to provide this regulation and have no other remedy. They are urging the passage of Federal legislation to regulate the length of time a train may block a roadway in the interest of public health and safety. They are calling for Federal action to give them relief from the 45 minutes or more that trains are currently sitting in railway crossings and blocking their roadways. Believe it or not, trains actually stop in the middle of intersections for 45 minutes or longer at a time. I have been given examples of trains in Michigan that have sat for hours at crossings. You can imagine the ramifications of major intersections being completely blocked for so long. This nationwide problem is amplified in Southeast Michigan because of the number of rail lines in the region. For example, this lack of regulation is causing a lot of problems for some of the older municipalities in Michigan as train tracks literally cris-cross their cities. For instance, in Trenton, MI, there is an entire neighborhood that is bordered on one side by water on two sides by train tracks, forming a triangle. If two trains block the tracks at the same time, which has happened, the residents are literally trapped. Worse than the residents being trapped is the fact that ambulances, police and fire trucks are trapped out of town, or delayed in getting to their emergency destinations. Unless we take action and require the FRA to act, communities with rail crossings are vulnerable. The problems range from the problem of traffic congestion and delays to the literal inability of emergency vehicles to get in or out of a community. Many Michigan cities have railroad crossings at a number of important intersections that, when closed by trains, severely limits their ability to provide emergency service to its residents. Medical emergency crews in Michigan have specifically complained to me that they face the daily problem of trains blocking road traffic. They tell me this has the potential to put in jeopardy their patients best chance of recovery. As we all understand, time is of the essence in emergency situations. Trains blocking railroad crossings also pose a threat for pedestrians and children who may be tempted to crawl under or between rail cars during long waits in order get to or from school. Vehicles may also be tempted to speed around a train before it gets to the crossing in order to avoid long delays. Both situations unnecessarily put lives in danger. Michigan businesses have also complained to me that trains have blocked important roads for extensive periods of time during plant shift changes. This has resulted in unnecessary lost wages and lost production when employees cannot get to work. Dozens of Michigan's towns and cities have pleaded for Federal action to resolve this intolerable situation and have even passed resolutions in support of this legislation. They include: Charter Township of Huron, City of Lincoln Park, City of Plymouth, City of Riverview, City of Rockwood, City of Southgate, City of Trenton, City of Westland, to name only a few. Our community leaders believe it is essential to the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of their cities that blocked crossings be kept to a reasonable minimum, so that emergency vehicles may have ready access to their citizens. The legislation I am introducing today will give the Federal Railroad Administration the push it needs to enact much needed regulations to address this safety problem. My bill would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations addressing these safety concerns. It is a reasonable approach with nothing controversial or complicated about it. Congressman Dingell has sponsored an identical bill in the House. We need to stop the delays and remove potentially dangerous situations by minimizing how long trains can stop at grade crossings. Its time to address this lingering safety concern and reduce the risk to motorists, pedestrians, and citizens at large. This is a very simple bill that aims to stop the abuse of trains unnecessarily blocking railroad crossings. It simply directs the FRA, the agency tasked with overseeing railroad safety, to take action in this area. I hope this legislation will be enacted quickly. The Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act has the support of local mayors, fire and police departments and emergency organizations. There is currently no Federal limit to how long trains can sit and block railroad crossings. This bill would require that one be instituted, in the name of the public's safety. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka and Grassley today in sponsoring amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act that will strengthen the law protecting employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. I sponsored the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which strengthened and clarified the intent of whistleblower rights in the merit system. But recent holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the result that additional clarifying language is sorely needed. The Federal Circuit has seriously misinterpreted key provisions of the whistleblower law, and the bill we are introducing today is intended to correct those misinterpretations. Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a Federal employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a Federal program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want Federal employees to identify problems in our programs so we can fix them, and if they fear reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to protect the whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the taxpayer. We need to encourage, not discourage, disclosures of fraud, waste and abuse. Today, however, the effect of the Federal Circuit decisions is to discourage the Federal employee whistleblower and overturn Congressional intent. The Federal Circuit has misinterpreted the plain language of the law on what constitutes protected disclosure under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Most notably, in the case of Lachance versus White, decided on May 14, 1999, the Federal Circuit imposed an unfounded and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee whistleblowers in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was an education specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new educational system that purported to mandate quality standards for schools contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new system as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, removing his duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an independent management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force canceled the program White had criticized. White appealed the reassignment in 1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since. The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision and remanded it back to the administrative judge holding that since White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced gross mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On remand, the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated the Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return White to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB's decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to support a violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the subject at issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that his belief was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the ``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the disclosures revealed misbehavior [by the Air Force] . . .'' The court went on to say: In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and implementation via the QES standards might well show them to be entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed, this review would start out with a ``presumption that public officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law and governing regulations. . . . And this presumption stands unless there is `irrefragable proof to the contrary'.'' The fact that the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the MSPB to have the MSPB reconsider whether it was reasonable to believe that what the Air Force did in this case involved gross mismanagement was appropriate. But, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly erroneous and excessive standard on the employee in proving ``reasonable belief,'' requiring ``irrefragable'' proof that there was gross mismanagement. Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable, incontrovertible, incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal employee meet a standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross mismanagement? Moreover, there is nothing in the law or the legislative history that even suggests such a standard with respect to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the law is not for the employee to act as an investigator and compile evidence to have ``irrefragable'' proof that there is fraud, waste or abuse. The employee, under the clear language of the statue, need only have ``a reasonable belief'' that there is fraud, waste or abuse occurring before making a protected disclosure. This bill will clarify the law so this misinterpretation will not happen again. The bill addresses a number of other important issues as well. For example, the bill adds a provision to the Whistleblower Protection Act that provides specific protection to a whistleblower who discloses evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse involving classified information if that disclosure is made to the appropriate committee of Congress or Federal executive branch employee authorized to receive the classified information. In closing, I want to thank Senator Akaka for his leadership in this area.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka and Grassley today in sponsoring amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act that will strengthen the law protecting employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. I sponsored the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which strengthened and clarified the intent of whistleblower rights in the merit system. But recent holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the result that additional clarifying language is sorely needed. The Federal Circuit has seriously misinterpreted key provisions of the whistleblower law, and the bill we are introducing today is intended to correct those misinterpretations. Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a Federal employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a Federal program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want Federal employees to identify problems in our programs so we can fix them, and if they fear reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to protect the whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the taxpayer. We need to encourage, not discourage, disclosures of fraud, waste and abuse. Today, however, the effect of the Federal Circuit decisions is to discourage the Federal employee whistleblower and overturn Congressional intent. The Federal Circuit has misinterpreted the plain language of the law on what constitutes protected disclosure under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Most notably, in the case of Lachance versus White, decided on May 14, 1999, the Federal Circuit imposed an unfounded and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee whistleblowers in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was an education specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new educational system that purported to mandate quality standards for schools contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new system as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, removing his duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an independent management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force canceled the program White had criticized. White appealed the reassignment in 1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since. The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision and remanded it back to the administrative judge holding that since White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced gross mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On remand, the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated the Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return White to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB's decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to support a violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the subject at issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that his belief was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the ``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the disclosures revealed misbehavior [by the Air Force] . . .'' The court went on to say: In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and implementation via the QES standards might well show them to be entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed, this review would start out with a ``presumption that public officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law and governing regulations. . . . And this presumption stands unless there is `irrefragable proof to the contrary'.'' The fact that the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the MSPB to have the MSPB reconsider whether it was reasonable to believe that what the Air Force did in this case involved gross mismanagement was appropriate. But, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly erroneous and excessive standard on the employee in proving ``reasonable belief,'' requiring ``irrefragable'' proof that there was gross mismanagement. Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable, incontrovertible, incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal employee meet a standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross mismanagement? Moreover, there is nothing in the law or the legislative history that even suggests such a standard with respect to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the law is not for the employee to act as an investigator and compile evidence to have ``irrefragable'' proof that there is fraud, waste or abuse. The employee, under the clear language of the statue, need only have ``a reasonable belief'' that there is fraud, waste or abuse occurring before making a protected disclosure. This bill will clarify the law so this misinterpretation will not happen again. The bill addresses a number of other important issues as well. For example, the bill adds a provision to the Whistleblower Protection Act that provides specific protection to a whistleblower who discloses evidence of fraud, waste, and abuse involving classified information if that disclosure is made to the appropriate committee of Congress or Federal executive branch employee authorized to receive the classified information. In closing, I want to thank Senator Akaka for his leadership in this area.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the June issue of the journal Pediatrics reports the results of a disturbing study on children and guns. A journal article describes an experiment conducted by researchers from Emory University School of Medicine and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta-Egleston Hospital. The researchers wanted to determine how sixty four eight to twelve year old boys would behave when they found a handgun in a presumably unthreatening environment. Researchers placed groups of two or three boys in a room with a one way mirror. Two water pistols and an actual .380 caliber handgun were concealed in separate drawers in the room. When left alone for a mere 15 minutes, nearly three quarters of the groups found the handgun. Of those groups, more than three quarters handled the guns. And 16 boys-- one out of every four in the study--actually pulled the trigger. And none of these boys knew that the gun was not loaded. Perhaps most distressing is the fact that more than 90 percent of those who handled the gun or pulled the trigger had some form of gun safety instruction. Despite this study and countless other examples of the potentially lethal implications of mixing kids and guns, the National Rifle Association has not strayed from its mantra. When asked about the Emory study, an NRA spokesman was reported to have said simply ``You can certainly assume that the findings are artificial.'' But I think Emory's Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a co-author of the study, had it right. Dr Kellerman said, ``Since we can't make kids gun proof, why can't we make guns kid proof?'' That makes sense to me. So while the NRA is free to bury its head in the sand, we are not. We in the Congress have a moral responsibility to stand up for what's right, close the loopholes in our gun laws, and make our nation a little safer for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to honor the students at Sugarbush Elementary School, in my home state of Michigan. These motivated students will be honored on June 6th of this year for winning first place in the 18th Annual American Set A Good Example Competition. Too often we hear about all the negative influences facing our youth. Much has been made of the many problems facing our children. While we hear about the threats posed by drugs, violence and illiteracy, too little is made of the positive steps that our youth are making to fight these terrible problems. This year, students from thousands of schools participated in the National Children's Set A Good Example Competition in an effort to address these problems. This competition is an innovative program that takes students' ideas seriously, and encourages them to develop and design projects that combat problems facing them every day. Everybody truly wins when children are given the chance to express themselves and improve their communities, but the students at Sugarbush Elementary School received special notice when they were awarded 1st place in the National Children's Set a Good Example Competition. Their project encourages children to avoid drugs, respect people and protect the environment--values that people of all ages should live by. Winning first place in a contest that includes over 10,000 schools is a significant accomplishment, and the students, faculty and parents at Sugarbush Elementary School have every reason to be proud of this accomplishment. I am sure that my Senate colleagues will join me in honoring the students at Sugarbush Elementary School for Winning 1st place in the National Children's Set a Good Example Competition, and more importantly for their hard work, idealism and commitment to strong values.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Today I would like to commemorate the achievements of a beloved religious leader, dedicated father and husband and friend from my home state of Michigan, Rabbi Yitschak Meir Kagan. On June 3 of this year, people from around the world will be gathering in Southfield, MI, to honor the life and memory of Rabbi Kagan. Through hard work and an unwavering commitment to the ideals of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Kagan's work has made an indelible mark upon countless individuals. His deep faith, keen intellect, and concern for others has led him to give generously of himself. Born in England, Rabbi Kagan's extensive education assumed an international flavor. After early instruction in Great Britain, he studied at the Lubavitch Yeshiva in Israel, the Central Lubavitch Academy in New York and the Rabbinical College in Montreal where he received his ordination. Central to Rabbi Kagan's life was the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. In 1966, Rabbi Kagan joined the Michigan Chabad-Lubavitch. For thirty-five years he worked tirelessly to expand the Lubavitch Foundation's presence in Michigan. Chabad-Lubavitch is a Hasidic sect that originated in Lubavitch, Russia. Lubavitch means ``brotherly love,'' and Chabad is an acronym for a philosophy that pursues wisdom, understanding and knowledge of God. Rabbi Kagan's life embodied the ideal of brotherly love as he sought ``to increase the knowledge of Judaism within every Jew'' by educating people about the Torah, providing worship services and performing charitable acts. As Associate Director of the Lubavitch Foundation, Rabbi Kagan expanded the Foundation by establishing Chabad houses in Ann Arbor, Flint and Grand Rapids, developing ``the Campus of Living Judaism;'' counseling students and tending to the spiritual development of countless individuals. Rabbi Kagan's work reached far beyond Michigan. The printed word enabled his thoughts and insights to span the globe. He published essays adapted from the works of Lubavitcher Rebbe that were read by a multitude each month. In addition, he edited and translated the Rebbe's classic text, Hayom Yom, edited philosophical texts and translated commentaries on the Torah. Rabbi Kagan has been a community and spiritual leader for over three decades. I have been able to witness, firsthand, his enthusiastic commitment to helping others in need. Rabbi Kagan touched the lives of all who met him. He worked with and helped immigrants, prisoners, drug users, families in need and others with characteristic zeal, kindness and love. I know my Senate colleagues join me in commemorating the life of Rabbi Yitschak Meir Kagan, and in offering their condolences to Rochel Kagan, his wife, and his extended family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the achievements of ThermoAnalytics, Inc., a small business from my home state of Michigan that has been once again recognized for its quality products and high tech innovation. On May 9 of this year, ThermoAnalytics was selected by the Small Business Administration as the Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year 2000 for Region V, an area that includes Michigan, Illinois, Indian, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. This is the third quality award bestowed upon ThermoAnalytics, Inc. by the Federal Government in the past year. ThermoAnalytics has worked with the automotive industry and the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to develop a world class software tool that is considered standard in the auto industry and Department of the Army. As the Army continues to transform itself into a smaller, lighter and more efficient fighting force, computer analysis tools, such as these, are used to design performance vehicles before they are built and tested. The products designed by ThermoAnalytics are helping the Army achieve this important goal. ThermoAnalytics developed a computerized model for heat management to aid in the assessment of the susceptibility of Army vehicles to threat sensors. This technology was commercialized into a state-of-the-art image based radiation solver. The commercial product was released in July 1999 and provides engineers with a quick and simple thermal predication tool. A second commercial product was developed for more advanced use by the Big 3 automotive manufacturers and associated automotive markets. The products are used widely by the automotive industry and military labs and contractors. In addition to the Contractor of the Year Award, ThermoAnalytics received the Small Business Administration's Tibbetts Award for their accomplishments in the area of high technology innovation on October 3, 2000. Tibbetts Awards are presented annually to small technology firms which have achieved excellence under the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. The winners, one from each state, are selected based on the economic impact of the technological innovation, overall business achievement and demonstration of effective collaborations. Prior to the Contractor of the Year Award and the Tibbetts Award, ThermoAnalytics received the Army Phase II Quality Award on August 22, 2000. These three awards highlight the ingenuity and innovation that have come to typify ThermoAnalytics. ThermoAnalytics, Inc. is an outstanding company that has played a vital role in assisting the United States Army and private industry. I know that my Senate Colleagues will join me in congratulating ThermoAnalytics on being named the Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year for Region V.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, as co-chairman of the Senate Auto Caucus, I am submitting with my colleague and Auto Caucus co-chairman, Senator Voinovich, a Concurrent Resolution urging Korea to remove its automotive trade barriers to U.S. automotive exports. Our resolutions urges the Republic of Korea to immediately end practices that have restricted market access for U.S. made automobiles and auto parts and meet the letter and spirit of the commitments it made in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding in Automotive Trade. An identical Resolution is being submitted in the House by the co-chairmen of the House Auto Caucus. I call on both chambers to act swiftly to pass this important measure and send a strong signal to the Government of Korea that it's time to remove these trade barriers. The Senate and House Auto Caucuses have worked hard to bring attention to the rapidly increasing automotive trade deficit between the United States and South Korea. We have urged our Government to make it a priority to remove barriers to competitive U.S. automotive exports to Korea. It is a matter of simple fairness and American jobs. When it comes to automotive trade between the United States and Korea, the numbers speak for themselves. Korea has the most closed market for imported motor vehicles in the developed world with foreign vehicles making up less than one half of one percent of its total vehicle market. At the same time, Korea is dependent on open markets to absorb its automotive exports and has become one of the world's major auto exporting countries. The relationship is so blatantly unfair that Korea cannot deny their market is closed. Last year, Korea imported only 1,000 vehicles from the United States and exported nearly 500,000 to the United States. This grossly unfair automotive trade relationship is due to the continuation in Korea of discriminatory practices such as labeling foreign vehicles as ``luxury goods''; ignoring harassment by the media and others of foreign vehicles owners; and an automotive tax system which discriminates against imported vehicles, making them prohibitively expensive. It's not fair and our message to Korea is that we don't accept it. That is why we submit this Concurrent Resolution on the even of the next round of trade negotiations between the United States and Korea which start in mid-June. The message we wish to send is clear and simple: we expect to see some significant market opening concessions by the Government of Korea in this round of negotiations and we expect to see the result in the form of actual and significantly increased sales of U.S. vehicles and parts in Korea. After five years of bilateral negotiations and two major trade agreements, imported automobiles are still locked out of Korea. This situation is unacceptable to the United States Congress and to the American people and it has to change. We expect and hope that the Korean Government will quadruple the effort that is required of them in order to ensure an open Korean market to U.S. automotive products. The nearly 2.5 million men and women working in the largest manufacturing and highest exporting industry in our country deserve nothing less.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, at the beginning of this year, the State of Michigan enacted a ``shall issue'' law that makes it easier to obtain a concealed carry permit and will increase the number of guns on our streets. The law, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2001, takes discretion away from local gun boards and requires authorities to issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to any applicant who meets basic eligibility requirements. Most law enforcement groups in Michigan reject the proliferation of concealed weapons in our communities and warn that this law will move our State in a dangerous direction. Similarly, gun safety groups, including the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence and the Michigan Million Mom March, have voiced their concerns that the expected ten-fold increase in the number of concealed weapons on Michigan's streets would jeopardize the safety of our children. These and other groups that oppose the ``shall issue'' law joined together to form the coalition of People Who Care About Kids and successfully collected more that 230,000 signatures on a petition calling for a referendum on the law. Last week, the Michigan State Court of Appeals came down on the side the voters of the State, agreeing that they should be able to decide on the law in a referendum. The appeals panel stated that ``the overarching right of the people to their `direct legislative voice' '' overrides a constitutional prohibition against referenda for laws that include spending provisions. Unless the decision is overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court, the voters of Michigan will be able to voice their opinions on the ``shall issue'' law in a referendum in November 2002. This unanimous decision by the State Court of Appeals panel is not only a victory for the voters of Michigan, but also for the safety of our children and the security of our communities. I am convinced the people of Michigan want to find ways to decrease the amount of gun violence in our communities, not remove discretion from local gun boards with the goal of increasing the number of guns on our streets. I am pleased that they will have a say in this important issue that so directly impacts their lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the budget resolution, including the tax bill which has passed the Senate, will almost surely push us back into the deficit ditch. The tax bill was rushed through before the President makes his request for additional defense funds, before the tax writing committees adopt additional provisions which we all know are forthcoming to extend current tax provisions, before the tax writing committees act to avoid the calamity which will befall 40 million people who will be forced to pay an alternative minimum tax as a result of this tax bill. That's twice the number that will be paying alternative minimum taxes by 2011 under current law. This fiscally irresponsible tax bill was pushed through before the review of the projected surplus which is due in August, and also before the appropriations bills are reported, which everyone here knows will exceed the domestic discretionary spending cap provided for in the budget resolution. The final result of all this fiscal irresponsibility will almost surely be the raiding of the Medicare surplus and a return to the deficit days of the 1980s. Our future economic health took a blow today. I support a tax cut, a reduction in taxes which is modest enough to be fiscally responsible, swift enough to provide an economic stimulus, and fair to all Americans, including working families who are so shortchanged by the Republican proposal. The bill passed today is the opposite. Its large size makes it fiscally irresponsible, it actually delays tax relief, and it provides most of its benefit to the upper income Americans. It is based on long-term surplus projections which history shows to be highly speculative making this bill dangerous to our economic future. Finally, it is being catapulted through the Senate, exploiting a process which severely limits debate and which was never intended for tax reduction legislation of this size. Although this bill is advertised as a $1.35 trillion tax bill, it's true cost is closer to $2 trillion. It fails to account for the cost of real Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reform. In fact, under this legislation, by 2011, nearly 40 million taxpayers will have to pay the AMT, including many middle income taxpayers. It ignores the fact that tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars worth of additional spending, over ten years, will be required to live up to the President's goals for defense and education, and to provide for urgent domestic needs this Senate knows it is going to support. This tax bill takes us back to the bad old days of backloaded tax breaks whose real costs explode several years after enactment. Although it technically sunsets its provisions in 2011 to meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule, the changes in the tax code which it makes, such as the repeal of the estate tax, are clearly intended to be permanent. The cost of these changes explode immediately beyond the ten-year ``window''. In fact, the bill's claimed $1.35 trillion price tag could triple in the second ten years. This budgetary time bomb is set go off at roughly the same time as the bill begins to come due for Medicare and Social Security. That is the time the ``baby boomers'' begin to retire and we must begin to draw down the Social Security Trust fund. This tax bill is based on highly speculative long-term projections. Projections are always risky. We have seen many Federal budget estimates, and we know well that as quickly as these surpluses appeared, they could disappear. This bill is based on projections of surpluses for ten years downstream. History has shown that CBO projections for even five years into the future have been off over the past decade by an average of more than 100 percent. The massive tax cut which the Senate has passed threatens to lead us back into the deficit ditch. We just climbed out of that ditch. And we shouldn't head there again, particularly when the country is saddled with a national debt that resulted from the last binge of deficits. The current national debt is $5.6 trillion. Based on the Budget Resolution which the Senate recently adopted and based on this tax cut, the national debt at the end of the next ten years will have increased to $6.7 trillion. If the projected surpluses do in fact materialize, we should be using them mainly to pay down the national debt instead of increasing that debt with a big tax cut. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan introduced his Economic Recovery Tax Act which included huge tax cuts and predictions that the budget would be balanced by 1984. In 1981, I opposed that supply side economic approach because I was convinced that it would lead to huge deficits. We did indeed pay dearly for the debt which resulted from that legislation. In 1992, the annual deficit in the federal budget had reached $290 billion. The remarkable progress which since then has brought us to our current surpluses came about in large part as a result of the deficit reduction package which President Clinton presented in 1993, and which the Senate and House each passed by a margin of one vote. We should not now be passing an imprudent tax bill like the one before us, and head back toward new future deficits. Although the tax cut is irresponsibly large, the economic impact will be remarkably small, because the bill before us does not contain the $85 billion economic stimulus adopted in the Senate-passed budget resolution. Only $33 billion is allocated for tax relief this year. The bill is extensively back-loaded: it doesn't start marriage penalty relief--the doubling of the standard deduction and the expansion of the 15 percent bracket--until 2006. IRA contribution limits aren't fully phased in until 2011. The Child Credit isn't fully phased in until 2011. The delay in relief actually shifts the responsibility of paying for our excess onto the next generation. The relief provided in the bill isn't equitable. There is no tax relief for the 25 million taxpaying Americans that pay their federal taxes through the payroll tax. And it means too little to taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket, who will see no reduction in their marginal tax rate, while those in the top 1 percent receive nearly $40,000 worth of relief. In fact overall, the top 1 percent, earning an average of more than a million dollars a year, will receive about 35 percent of the benefits under this tax legislation. I am also deeply troubled by the process which has brought us to this point. We considered this legislation under special rules contained in the Budget Act for a process called ``reconciliation''. This process is being misused to steamroll this bill through the Senate. By restricting a Senator's right to fully debate and amend this bill--no more than twenty hours of debate is permitted and the amendment process is severely constrained--the majority puts the Senate in a straightjacket. A similar oppressive tactic was used earlier when the majority bypassed the Budget Committee to bring the Budget Resolution to the Senate floor and when they excluded Democrats from the Conference Committee in order to write the reconciliation instructions which are being used to shield this legislation from full debate and amendment. This process is a rush to judgment which does damage to the institution of the Senate and its reputation for deliberation. And, it does this damage to promote a massive tax bill which will negatively affect the economic well-being of Americans for decades to come. This Administration argues that the projected surplus should be returned to the tax payers because it is their money. Of course it is their money. But the economy is all of ours too. Social Security belongs to all of us. The Medicare program belongs to all of us. Our education program and helping people through college, belongs to all of us. And, of course, the national debt belongs to all of us as well. We owe it to the American people to reject this imprudent tax cut in order to pay down that national debt and to strengthen our commitment to those programs that the American people want. We can do that consistent with a targeted, modest, prudent tax cut. Unless it is improved in the Conference with the House, which is not likely, we should defeat this massive, unfair, imprudent tax cut bill when it returns to the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when one looks at the deduction for college tuition in the bill, one finds, at least to my amazement, that it does not get fully phased in until 2004 and then it sunsets; it gets wiped out in 2006. We should do a lot better than that for this important deduction, and this amendment will provide the full deduction immediately and pays for it by using part of the top tax bracket reduction. An awful lot of people will benefit from this amendment helping to get students through college by having a real college tuition deduction, not just rhetoric but real, and be available now and not sunsetted 2 years after it is fully phased in. I ask that the Senator from New York be recognized, if I have any time on my minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wanted the amendment to be read because it is a short amendment. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. It is a modest effort at making the bill a little more fiscally responsible. The amount of the tax cut is set forth in the budget resolution. That same budget resolution sets a cap for domestic discretionary spending. We are not waiting, as we should, to see how big a tax cut we should put in place to see whether or not we are going to live under those caps which the budget resolution sets for domestic discretionary spending. This amendment says if Congress breaks the spending caps in the budget resolution, then this 1-percent reduction in the upper bracket, which is provided for in this fiscal year, will not go into effect to the extent that it is necessary to pay for the excess in domestic discretionary spending for which the Congress votes. Otherwise, we are dipping into the Medicare surplus. This is an amendment for fiscal responsibility. It is modest and will help make this bill more fiscally responsible.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of the act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is similar to amendment No. 759 at the desk, but it has been redrafted to avoid the germaneness point of order which could have rested against it based on giving authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. It eliminates that authority. It just sets the rates. What we do with this amendment is make the changes in the unified estate taxes immediate instead of waiting 10 years for that $4 million unified exemption, which is so important to making sure that small businesses are not caught by the estate tax. This amendment says we should do that now. We should bring forward these exemptions, these unified exemptions that are important to eliminate small businesses and farms from being caught in the estate tax. Ninety percent of the small businesses that would be caught by the estate tax will not be caught once we have a $4 million unified exemption. This brings forward that exemption and pays for it by eliminating the upper bracket reduction. A lot more people will be benefited--a lot more small businesses.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.