Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on Sunday, February 11, 2001, Americans of Lithuanian descent will be gathering, in my home State of Michigan, to celebrate the 83rd anniversary of Lithuanian Independence. Given the Lithuanian people's long history of successfully preserving and maintaining their culture and identity, there is reason for all those of Lithuanian descent to be proud. Such an achievement stands as an inspiration for people everywhere. The Lithuanian people have long refused to be placed under the yoke of oppression. They became independent in 1918, fought the Nazis during the Second World War and refused to lose hope during many years of Soviet rule. Reflecting on these trials can be cause for great sadness but also much hope. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lithuania has experienced nearly eleven years of democracy and free markets. The Lithuanian people are to be commended for the significant steps they taken to ensure Lithuania's place in the free world. In 1999, I had the opportunity to meet with President Valdas Adamkus, and discuss many issues facing both our nations. Many of my colleagues may not know this, but so great is President Adamkus' love for his ancestral homeland that he returned to Lithuania to run for President after a successful career in the United States, including service as an official in the States Environmental Protection Agency. In its efforts to reform, Lithuania has placed a premium on joining the European Union, EU, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Sound monetary policy and a stable currency have given Lithuania the framework for economic growth and prosperity. On the security front, Lithuania was the first member of the former Soviet Union to participate in the Partnership for Peace. The Partnership for Peace is an important program where the United States and its NATO allies work with former Warsaw Pact nations on common security measures. At this time when we honor Lithuania's independence, it is only fitting that we laud the extraordinary advances made by the Lithuanian people. I know my Senate colleagues join me in saluting the Lithuanian people for their tremendous courage in promoting participatory democracy and free markets.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this legislation is very important to the people of Michigan because we know what it is like to have pipeline safety concerns in our own backyard. Last June, a gasoline pipeline ruptured in Michigan, spilling more than 70,000 gallons of gasoline. Further, national estimates rank Michigan second only to Texas in the number of repairs to damaged or leaking natural gas lines. Clearly, we need comprehensive legislation which will help prevent further tragedies like those which have occurred in the United States over the past few years. This legislation would strengthen pipeline safety regulations and encourage increased participation from interested and affected state agencies and communities as well as expand citizen right-to-know provisions. It would also provide increased funding to the development of technologies to improve pipeline safety. Although this bill could be stronger, it accomplishes many goals. I hope that when it comes back from Conference, we will see an even stronger bill. However, I will support this legislation at this time because I believe it moves us in the right direction.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last Friday, at least one gunshot was fired at Detroit's Osborn High School. The gunshot hit a classroom window and two students and a teacher were injured as glass shattered across the room. Although the shooting produced no substantial physical injuries, it created great anxiety for the students and families of Osborn High School, who no doubt will sustain the emotional injuries of such a shooting for some time. The students and teachers at Osborn High School are not alone in their anxiety. Around the nation, students and their families are seriously concerned about safety in their schools. Students deserve to feel safe in their learning environments rather than feeling anxious and fearful. For the students at Osborn High School and everywhere else in America, Congress must work to limit the accessibility that young people have to guns, and reduce the gun violence in our schools and community places.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If I could enter into a unanimous consent request sequencing the next two Senators: The Senator from Virginia be recognized, and after the Senator from Virginia has finished, then I be recognized, which is a modification of a previous unanimous consent.

Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps 15 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Michigan will yield, I think we were going to go back and forth.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Alabama has concluded, I be recognized.

Mr. LEVIN. We were alternating.

Mr. LEVIN. We just did. Could the Senator from Virginia give us a time indication.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether or not one of our former colleagues and friend, Senator John Ashcroft, should be confirmed to the position of Attorney General of the United States. In the vast majority of Cabinet nominations, the decision is an obvious one. Most of a President's nominees to his Cabinet receive overwhelming, if not unanimous, support by the Senate, and that is as it should be. When it comes to Cabinet appointees, we as a Senate are willing to give the President wide berth in his choice, knowing that, unlike the lifetime appointment of Federal judges, the President must be able to choose appointees who can carry out his program during his term, people who share his values, his vision and his ideals. But the Constitution also requires us to exercise our judgment. The deference owed the President is due deference, not unlimited deference. In his inaugural address to the Nation, President Bush laid out the vision and ideals he will seek to carry out, visions and ideals which I believe most of us share. He said: The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. And he called on Americans ``to enact this promise in our lives and our laws.'' He then made this pledge: ``I will work to build a single nation of justice . . .'' The Department of Justice is the place above all where the chance to further the vision of ``a single nation of justice'' resides. Like the rest of my colleagues, I know Senator Ashcroft in his role as Senator from, and as advocate for, the State of Missouri. I consider him a friend. But today we are not called upon to judge Senator Ashcroft as a friend or colleague, as a Senator representing his home State, or as a nominee for any other post but Attorney General of the United States--at this time in our history and keeping in mind the goal of building a ``single nation of justice.'' The Attorney General does not mechanically enforce the law. His job is not a matter of simply applying a specified law to a specified set of facts. Great discretion resides with the Attorney General and the proper functioning of the Department of Justice requires that the public--all the public--feels that discretion will be exercised with balanced and deliberative judgment. There are many times when a prosecutor has within his grasp the power to prosecute or take a pass, and in that decision lies the lives of the people involved and their families. A commitment to enforce the law of the land is the beginning point, not the ending point. The discretion exercised by the Attorney General is not critical in the easy or obvious matters that do not require the Attorney General's most considered judgment, but in the complex and unclear ones where a commitment simply to enforce the law does not resolve the complexities, and where balanced deliberation is essential. If America is to build a ``single nation of justice,'' the Department of Justice should have as its head someone whose record demonstrates evenhandedness and whose rhetoric seeks to assure the American people of fair and balanced consideration, rather than division and distrust. More than 25 years ago, at his swearing-in ceremony, Edward Levi, Attorney General under President Ford, reflected this sentiment by stating if we are going to achieve ``our common goals: among them domestic tranquility, the blessings of liberty and the establishment of justice'' through the enforcement and administration of law, then it takes ``dedicated men and women to accomplish this through their zeal and determination, and also their concern for fairness and impartiality.'' While Senator Ashcroft's rhetoric over the years reveals his zeal and determination, it has not reflected the same concern for impartiality and fairness. I have concluded that his record and his rhetoric are so divisive and polarizing that his nomination will not provide the necessary confidence all Americans are entitled to have in the fairness and impartiality required of the Department of Justice. Here are four examples: First is his position and his effort with respect to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White as a Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. It was unfair and inappropriate to maintain Judge White, a distinguished jurist on the Missouri Supreme Court, had ``a slant toward criminals'' and was ``against . . . the culture in terms of maintaining order,'' as Senator Ashcroft did in his speech to the Senate on October 4, 1999. It was unjust to say Judge White practices ``procriminal jurisprudence'' and will use his ``lifetime appointment to push law in a procriminal direction.'' It was an unfounded and unfair characterization of Judge White to assert that Judge White ``has been very willing to say: We should seek, at every turn, in some of these cases to provide an additional opportunity for an individual to escape punishment.'' It was a significant distortion of Judge White's record for Senator Ashcroft to say in the same speech to the Senate that Judge White's ``opinions, and particularly his dissents, reflect a serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty,'' given the fact that Judge White voted with then-Governor Ashcroft's appointees in death penalty cases 95 percent of the time. Moreover, it was unfair that Senator Ashcroft did not raise any reference to the death penalty or any of his concerns about Judge White's record before or at Judge White's confirmation hearing. Judge White was not given the chance to respond to these allegations during the consideration of his nomination. Rather, these personal attacks came well after Judge White had appeared before the Judiciary Committee. When asked at his own confirmation hearing whether he treated Judge White fairly, Senator Ashcroft said: I believe that I acted properly in carrying out my duties as a member of the committee and as a member of the Senate in relation to Judge White. In responding in that fashion, he neither defended his characterizations, qualified them or withdrew them. Senator Ashcroft's response therefore left standing as his current view his claims and statements with respect to Judge White. Second is Senator Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan magazine, a publication which has been described as a ``neo- confederate.'' Senator Ashcroft not only granted an interview to Southern Partisan magazine, he commended the magazine for helping to ``set the record straight.'' He said: We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda. While in that interview Senator Ashcroft expressed support for Southern Partisan's message, he later said that he did not know much about Southern Partisan and did not know what it promoted. Fair enough. But since his interview with Southern Partisan, much has been said about the magazine in the media and at Senator Ashcroft's own confirmation hearing. Southern Partisan was described as a ``publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke'' by a media watch group. In 1995, Southern Partisan offered its subscribers T-shirts celebrating the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the same year, an author of an article in that publication alleged ``there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics.'' In 1990, another article praised former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke as ``a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal.'' In 1996, an article in the magazine alleged ``slave owners . . . did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness.'' In 1991, another writer printed in the publication wrote, ``Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, `Where are the Americans?' for I met only Italians, Jews, and Puerto Ricans.'' I take Senator Ashcroft at his word that he did not know much about Southern Partisan magazine when he praised them for helping to ``set the record straight,'' in his words. I take him at his word. But where was the immediate disgust and repudiation when he learned what he had inadvertently praised? And, after the inquiries of others, why not make a prompt inquiry to satisfy himself that he had not inadvertently advanced the purpose of a racist publication? Even in his written responses to the Judiciary Committee, he said he only rejects the publication ``if the allegations about [the] magazine are true.'' More than 2 years after the original interview he gave to that magazine, it appears he never took it upon himself to inquire about the magazine's purpose, to see for himself if the allegations were true, and, if so, to correct the record. A person being considered for the office of Attorney General--the single most important person charged with enforcing our Nation's civil rights laws in a fair and just manner--should accept the obligation to make that inquiry if the American people are to have faith that their Attorney General will ``build a single nation of justice.'' As a third example, I am troubled by Senator Ashcroft's previous speeches on drug treatment. In 1997, Senator Ashcroft told the Claremont Institute: A government which takes the resources that we should devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts them to treatment resources . . . is a government that accommodates us at our lowest and least instead of calls us to our highest and best. During the same year, he addressed the Christian Coalition Road to Victory and said: Instead of stopping drugs at the border, we're investing in drug treatment centers. Instead of calling America to her highest and best by saying ``no'' to drugs, we're accommodating drug users with treatment. . . . Again, it is not just Senator Ashcroft's views on drug treatment that are troublesome--although they are--it is his choice of words, his rhetoric, that is so divisive and so polarizing. To suggest, as Senator Ashcroft does, that those who are crippled by addiction to drugs and who seek treatment are somehow the ``lowest and least'' violates President Bush's own inaugural promise that ``no insignificant person was ever born" and that we will ``build a single nation of justice.'' When I asked Senator Ashcroft in a written question what he meant by ``lowest and least,'' to give him an opportunity to comment or to explain or to confirm the clear impression that those words create, his response was a nonresponse. A fourth example is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to James Hormel's nomination for Ambassador to Luxembourg. Senator Ashcroft stated in press accounts that he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because Mr. Hormel ``actively supported the gay lifestyle.'' Senator Ashcroft also said a person's sexual orientation ``is within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration'' with respect to the qualifications to serve as an Ambassador. To suggest that a person could not represent America's interests or should be judged professionally because of sexual orientation is inappropriate and divisive. When pressed on this issue by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft further responded in writing: I did not believe [Hormel] would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe. To suggest that Luxembourg would not welcome Mr. Hormel's nomination is not true. Luxembourg has outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation, and its Government specifically said they would welcome James Hormel as Ambassador. And, most importantly, to fail to retract such contentious statements about a person because of his sexual orientation adds further doubt that all our people will have confidence that this nominee will strive to build that single nation of justice for which the President has called. In summary, I am deeply troubled by Senator Ashcroft's record of repeatedly divisive rhetoric and sometimes simply unfair personal attacks, such as what he has said and done about Judge White, his passive acceptance of the message of Southern Partisan, his statements about drug treatment as accommodating the ``lowest and least,'' and his statements about Mr. Hormel's qualifications to serve his country because of his sexual orientation. Senator Ashcroft has frequently engaged in ``us versus them" rhetoric. He frequently rejects moderation and has even criticized some members of his own party for engaging in what he characterized as ``deceptions'' when they ``preach pragmatism, champion conciliation [and] counsel compromise.'' Senator Ashcroft, in his confirmation hearings, in his written answers to questions posed by a number of Senators, including myself, either reaffirmed some of his divisive statements or simply did not explain the extreme language. His refusal to comment on some of the most troubling past statements leaves them standing as his current views. His language and his approach to issues in terms of ``us versus them'' would not prevent me from voting for his confirmation for most positions in the Cabinet. But more than any other Cabinet member, the Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, is charged with the responsibility of assuring that the Department of Justice's goal is equal justice under the law for all Americans. And although I consider John Ashcroft a friend, I will vote no on the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on New Year's Day, the Governor of Michigan signed into law a bill to take discretion away from local gun boards in issuing concealed gun licenses. The new law, scheduled to take effect on July 1st of this year, would increase the number of concealed handgun licenses in our state by 200,000 to 300,000--a ten-fold increase. The concealed weapons law is being challenged by a coalition of law enforcement and community groups across our state called the People Who Care About Kids. This coalition is working to obtain 151,000 signatures needed to suspend the implementation of the law and put the issue before voters in 2002. Other groups in our state are also working along side the coalition to keep our streets and our communities safe. One such group is the Detroit-based Save Our Sons And Daughters, SOSAD. I ask unanimous consent to print an article in the Record from the Detroit News about SOSAD to show what they are doing to fight the concealed weapons bill and to keep our children safe from gun violence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on October 16, 2000, Mr. Charlton Heston, President of the National Rifle Association (NRA), gave a speech at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On the campaign trial in Michigan, Mr. Heston asserted that Vice President Al Gore's position on guns had changed and suggested that ``in any other time or place, you'd be looking for a lynching mob.'' Such inflammatory and extremist remarks are an outrage. The NRA itself should condemn them. The fact that an average of ten children suffer gun-related deaths each day demands that we work together to end gun violence, yet Mr. Heston's comments serve only to further polarize the debate over guns and gun safety. Although some in the crowd at the NRA rally in October may have been in support of Mr. Heston's rhetoric, the majority of people in Michigan reject the hate that was exuded by NRA's leader that October day in Michigan. In November, voters in Michigan also demonstrated that they oppose the tactics of the gun lobby and voters around the country voiced their support for gun safety measures, such as closing the gun show loophole that gives youth and criminals illegitimate access to firearms. Mr. President, the American people have called on all of us to work toward decreasing the amount of gun violence in their schools and communities, and I am hopeful that the 107th Congress will be able to respond to their call by passing responsible gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Donald Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. It is important for the Senate confirm Mr. Rumsfeld today, the first day of the new administration, so that the new Secretary of Defense can assume his position in the chain of command of our armed forces. Mr. Rumsfeld is well qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense. He has a distinguished record of public service, and in fact served as Secretary of Defense in the last 14 months of President Ford's administration. Since then, he has led several large private sector companies, while still remaining active in national security policy issues. Most recently, he served as Chairman of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and the Commission to Assess the United States National Security Space Management and Organization. President Bush announced his intent to nominate Mr. Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense on December 28. Since then, the Armed Services Committee has conducted the same thorough review of this nomination that we apply to every nomination that comes before the committee. The nominee has submitted the required paperwork to the committee, met applicable financial disclosure requirements, and pledged to comply with the conflict of interest standards of the executive branch and the committee. Mr. Rumsfeld has completed the detailed Armed Services Committee questionnaire that we require of all nominees. He has also responded in writing to an extensive series of policy questions which were circulated to all members of the committee and released to the public. On February 11, the committee conducted a lengthy hearing with the nominee. A number of members of the committee submitted additional questions in writing to the nominee at the end of the confirmation hearing, and Mr. Rumsfeld has responded to all of those questions. Finally, Senator Warner and I have reviewed the summary of the FBI background investigation of Mr. Rumsfeld. Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee met and voted unanimously to recommend that the full Senate give its advice and consent to this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that a memo that Senator Warner and I sent to Senator Daschle and Senator Lott informing them of the committee's action be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDENT pro tempore: Without objection it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. LEVIN. As Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld will inherit the most dominant military force in the history of the world. Over the last two decades, our military has incorporated a series of technological improvements that have revolutionized their military capability--from precision-guided munitions and stealth technology to satellite reconnaissance and electronic warfare capabilities. Today, each of our military services is more lethal, more maneuverable, more versatile and has greater situational awareness on the battlefield than at any time in our history. But this is not a time for us to rest on our past accomplishments. The next administration and the Congress must work together to make sure our military is prepared to deal with the new threats to our security--particularly the terrorist threat--with new technologies, more mobile forces and improved intelligence capabilities. It is also essential that we devote a great deal of energy to combating what I believe is the greatest single threat to our security in the future-- the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, Donald Rumsfeld has a strong commitment to the national security of our country and to the well-being of the men and women of our armed forces and their families. He is well-qualified to lead the Department of Defense. I look forward to working with him in his new position, and I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, January 19, 2001. Memorandum to: Senator Daschle and Senator Lott. From: Senator Levin and Senator Warner. Subject: Nomination of Donald H. Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense. On December 28, 2000, President-elect Bush announced his intention to nominate Donald H. Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense. On January 3, 2001, the Committee on Armed Services forwarded the Committee's nomination questionnaire to Secretary-designate Rumsfeld. The Committee requires each nominee to complete a questionnaire relating to the nominee's qualifications and potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Rumsfeld's responses to the questionnaire provided basic biographical and financial information. Pursuant to its normal practice, on January 3, 2001, the Committee submitted a number of advance policy questions to the nominee. Secretary-designate Rumsfeld provided his responses to these questions on January 9, 2001. The questions and Secretary-designate Rumsfeld's responses were made a part of the record of the Committee's nomination hearing. In anticipation of the nomination, the Committee conducted a hearing on January 11, 2001, in public session, to carefully review the credentials of Secretary-designate Rumsfeld. Secretary-designate Rumsfeld was the only witness at this hearing. As part of the confirmation process, the Committee received the nominee's Public Financial Disclosure Report and appended ethics agreement, as well as letters on conflict of interest and related matters from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Based on this information, the Committee concludes that the nominee has agreed, upon appointment, to initiate the necessary actions to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding conflict of interest. The Committee on Armed Services found Donald H. Rumsfeld to be highly qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense. In an Executive Session on January 19, 2001, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend the Senate provide its advice and consent to the nomination of Mr. Rumsfeld. John Warner, Ranking Member. Carl Levin, Chairman.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on an issue that is important to our national security: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, that would ban all nuclear weapon tests. This is an issue that the new President and the new Senate should think about carefully and deliberately during the 107th Congress. Today General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented a report to President Clinton on his findings and recommendations on the CTBT. President Clinton had asked General Shalikashvili to conduct a comprehensive and independent study of the CTBT after the Senate voted against a resolution of ratification in October of 1999. The CTBT negotiations were completed in 1996, and the United States was the first nation to sign the Treaty. To date, 160 nations have signed it and 69 have ratified it, including all our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea and Russia. However, to enter into force, it must be ratified by 44 specified nations that have nuclear reactors, including the United States. The Treaty would prohibit all nuclear explosive tests. In so doing, it would make it much harder for nations to develop nuclear weapons, thus putting in place an important roadblock to nuclear weapon proliferation. The treaty provides for an expanded and improved international monitoring system that would improve our ability to detect and deter nuclear tests by other nations--but only if we ratify the treaty and it enters into force. Secretary of Defense Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support ratification of the CTBT, as do four former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including General Shalikashvili and Gen. Colin Powell. When the Senate took up the CTBT in October 1999, it did so in haste and without the traditional bipartisan deliberation we have accorded other arms control treaties. On the eve of the vote, 62 Senators signed a letter urging the Senate leadership to delay that vote and to postpone final consideration of the CTBT until the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, that request, which was made by nearly two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, to delay the vote, was not heeded, and the result was that the resolution of ratification was defeated by a vote of 51-48, with one Senator voting present. Again, General Shalikashvili was asked to review the entire situation, and in conducting his review, he met with a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle to discuss their concerns and their suggestions. He also met with many other experts on this issue, and he visited the nuclear weapons labs. General Shalikashvili's report is a valuable contribution to this important topic. This report, which was just filed today, places the CTBT in the broader context of our nuclear nonproliferation goals and efforts and points out that the CTBT is an important component of this enduring national security priority of nuclear nonproliferation. He concludes that the CTBT remains in our national interest and that the Senate should reconsider the treaty in a bipartisan manner, hopefully with the result that ratification is approved by the Senate. General Shalikashvili's report reviews the major concerns which were expressed about the CTBT during our debate, and it offers recommendations in each of these areas, including ways to improve our monitoring and verification of foreign nuclear testing efforts and ways to improve our nuclear weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program. These recommendations address concerns raised about the CTBT and provide some commonsense and balanced steps to improve our security while bringing the CTBT into force. Specifically, General Shalikashvili's report examines the larger nonproliferation context of the CTBT and concludes that the CTBT has a genuine nonproliferation value for our national security. His report studies the question of monitoring and verification and concludes that the monitoring system under the treaty will significantly enhance U.S. national monitoring capabilities and that cheating will be much harder and less useful than some fear. He evaluates our ability to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons and determines that we can do so without nuclear testing if we fully support the Stockpile Stewardship Program and manage it prudently. Finally, General Shalikashvili's report looks at the question of whether CTBT should be of indefinite duration and recommends that in addition to the safeguards accompanying the treaty, the Senate and the executive branch should conduct a joint review of the treaty 10 years after ratification and at 10-year intervals thereafter. One of the key points made by General Shalikashvili is that the CTBT is conditioned on a safeguard that will assure our ability to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile. Under safeguard F, the United States would maintain the right and the ability to withdraw from the treaty and to conduct any testing necessary if that were required to certify the safety and reliability of a nuclear weapon type critical to our nuclear deterrent. General Shalikashvili's recommendation on the joint review would strengthen this safeguard by saying that if, after that joint review, grave doubts remained about the treaty's value for our national security, the President would be prepared to withdraw from the treaty. I know General Shalikashvili's report will be considered carefully and seriously by the Senate and by the new administration. I hope we and the new administration will review his report and think through our CTBT position in a deliberate manner, and I will be making this point personally to President-elect Bush next Monday at a meeting in Austin for congressional defense and security leaders. We owe General Shalikashvili a national debt of gratitude for serving our Nation and its security once again. He has taken a great deal of his time since retiring to review the CTBT and to craft recommendations that I hope we will implement. I recommend his report to all Senators and to the new administration, and I hope we will reconsider the treaty in the best bipartisan spirit of the Senate as his report recommends. I ask unanimous consent that General Shalikashvili's letter to the President, accompanying his report, and his introduction and recommendations from the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in an unusual situation and we are dealing, I believe, with extreme wisdom. It is a very difficult anomaly. It has never happened before that the Senate has had a 50/50 split of this nature at the beginning of Congress. The only thing that comes close was in 1953, which was very different because the Republicans had a majority in the beginning of the Congress and the 50/ 50 situation that existed only occurred in the second session of that Congress. The same party was in control throughout with the Vice President's vote in the second session, which had the majority in the first session. This is an unusual situation. It took wisdom and statesmanship on the part of our leaders to put together a resolution which would carry us through this very difficult point. Just like during the impeachment situation, the leadership was able to work out a process which allowed the Senate to function and to proceed in a manner that would allow us to have comity and civility, to avoid recrimination. So here the leaders have been able to put together a resolution which will permit us to do just that. I not only wish to thank Senators Daschle and Lott, but many others have been involved in this. I see one of the clear architects of anything we do around here in the Senate based on a knowledge of the Senate as an institution and a knowledge of the Constitution. Senator Byrd is on the floor. His role on this has been essential as well; the wisdom and the implications and precedents which preceded us, and which we will be setting here today, are very much known to Senator Byrd. As always, we have relied heavily upon him in achieving this result. I simply say this: One of the national papers said a few days ago that power-sharing is the first test in the Senate. Whether that term ``power sharing'' is particularly beloved by Members of this body, nonetheless that is really what we have had to achieve today. We have succeeded in passing that test, in my judgment. We carved out the mechanism which will allow us to respect the fact that we have a 50/50 Senate. On the other hand, we are different from the House in at least two ways. Being in the presence of Senator Byrd, I am sure there are many more ways; but at least in two ways that I focus on. First, we have a Vice President, somebody who can break a tie. Second, we are a continuing body. The fact is we are a continuing body. If we didn't agree to a resolution, the previous Senate's resolution would continue to be in force until it was supplemented by a new resolution. That is very different from the situation that exists in the House of Representatives. In my home State in Michigan, we had a very positive experience in 1993, I believe, with a 50/50 House of Representatives. But they ended up with joint speakers, joint chairmen--joint everything, because there was no alternative. There was no way of breaking that tie. We have a way of breaking a tie here. We have a Vice President at least on the Senate floor. We don't have a Vice President in committee, but we have a Vice President on the Senate floor. And we have a continuing body. We are a continuing body, which means that the last resolution would have continued in place, with all of the difficulties and complications that would have created, until it was replaced by the resolution we are adopting here today. I commend our leadership and all those who have been involved in making it possible for us to proceed as a Senate in a manner which I think the public will respect as being fair and which is respectful of this body and this institution. I know how conscious we must be of what we are doing--not just for the next period of time until a majority is reestablished by one party or the other, but we must be respectful of the implications of what we are doing for future circumstances similar to these. History, I believe, will judge this agreement favorably. It is an agreement which is very sensitive to the history of this body. It is about as close to the 50/50 yard line as we can get consistent with the fact that there is indeed a Vice President who on the floor can break a tie consistent with the nature of this body as a continuing institution. The old saying that ``necessity is the mother of invention'' is surely true again. It is the mother of bipartisan invention here, and I think it will serve us very well, and we will find we can work together as well as we have so often even when one of us is in the majority and one in the minority. I know this has been the case on the Armed Services Committee. As the Presiding Officer knows and may know again, many of our committees work very well together on both sides of the aisle. It has been true between myself and Senator Warner, who has been chairman and will again be on the 20th, and with Senator Thurmond before him. We have worked together very closely. That closeness will continue surely and even perhaps be enhanced, if that is possible, by this resolution. I thank all those who have been involved. I see Senator Reid is also on the floor. I want to add my thanks to him because he has been at every moment involved in the carving of this document. I commend him and all others on both sides for their efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am very disappointed that the Governor of Michigan chose to sign a bill that will increase the number of concealed weapons on our streets by tens of thousands. On New Year's Day, Governor Engler signed into law House Bill 4530, which takes discretion away from local gun boards and requires that authorities must issue concealed weapons licenses to those who meet certain requirements. On December 13, 2000, I wrote a letter to the Governor asking him to veto the legislation. I asked the Governor to support our law enforcement personnel who believe the concealed weapons bill will make them and the public less safe. These groups include the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police and the Michigan Police Legislative Coalition, which includes the Michigan State Police Troopers Association, the Michigan State Police Command Officers Association, the Michigan Association of Police, the Police Officers Labor Council, Detroit Police Lieutenants and Sergeants Association, Detroit Police Officers Association, Warren Police Officers Association and Flint Police Officers Association. I support the position of law enforcement groups in this matter and I believe the people of Michigan do also. Local gun boards should retain control of these often life and death decisions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. In other words, it is our intent that with respect to the amendments to the Controlled Substances Act made by the provisions incorporated in H.R. 4365, decisions by qualified physicians about the appropriate means to treat their patients and to prescribe and dispense medications are not a proper matter for government regulation. While the bill clearly provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to expand the pool of qualified physicians, it is not the intention of our legislation that those regulations extend to the practice of medicine.

Mr. LEVIN. I agree with my colleague. I believe we successfully balanced both interests in the DATA bill. It is important legislation and I am pleased to have had the support of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senators Biden and Moynihan as we successfully moved this bipartisan legislation to enactment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Bloomfield, USAF. Lieutenant Colonel Bloomfield was the pilot of the space shuttle Endeavor during its recent 11-day mission to make repairs to the International Space Station Alpha. One of the highlights of this mission was the installation of new solar wings to provide electricity for the astronauts and cosmonauts who live and work there. These solar panels are 240 feet from tip to tip, the longest structure deployed in space. Lieutenant Colonel Bloomfield was born in Flint, Michigan. He graduated from Lake Fenton High School, and still considers Fenton, Michigan, as his hometown. He attended the United States Air Force Academy, where he was captain of the United States Air Force Academy Falcon Football Team. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Mechanics from the Air Force Academy, and a Master of Science Degree in Engineering Management from Old Dominion University. Lieutenant Colonel Bloomfield was trained as an F-15 Fighter Pilot, and has been assigned to NASA since 1995. This was his second space flight. His first flight was a mission to rendezvous and dock with the Russian Space Station Mir to exchange U.S. crew members. Mr. President, we in Michigan are proud of Lieutenant Colonel Bloomfield's record as a NASA astronaut. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating Lieutenant Colonel Bloomfield for his outstanding service to our nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a fine public servant, Michael H. Dettmer, on his retirement. Since January of 1994, Mike has served diligently as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan. During his seven- year tenure, his office obtained more than 2700 convictions and helped lead numerous crime fighting initiatives in the District involving Federal law enforcement's support, leadership and participation. Among his impressive accomplishments are the task forces and partnerships he helped create and foster to combat drugs and violent crime. A few of those specialized partnerships are the Methcathinone Task Force, the Benton Harbor Violent Crime Task Force, the Health Care Fraud Task Force, the Western Michigan Environmental Task Force and Project Exile. Mike is also to be credited for reinvigorating the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee/Victim-Witness unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Since 1994, this unit has adopted an elementary school in the Grand Rapids public school system, participated in the D.A.R.E (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and D.E.F.Y (Drug Education For Youth) programs, and sponsored more than 80 training programs covering all aspects of law enforcement. In addition, under Mike's leadership, four additional sites to the Weed and Seed Program have been created, making the Western District of Michigan's program one of the largest initiatives among any Federal District in the United States. In recognition of his efforts, in 1998, Mike was honored by the Department of Justice Programs Director and Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson for his work in the area of crime prevention and reduction. In addition, in the year 2000, Mike was honored by the national Executive Office of Weed and Seed with it's ``Creating Healthy Communities'' Award and by the City of Benton Harbor with the presentation of its ``Key to the City'' Award. Of course, his many achievements could not have been attained without the love and support of his wife of more than 30 years, Teckla, and their children, Janna and Bryn. Mr. President, I know that the members of the Senate will join me in congratulating Mike on a job well-done and thanking him for his service to the people of Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, late Wednesday night, the Michigan Legislature passed a bill that, if signed, will have a negative impact on public safety in my home state. The legislature passed the ``shall issue'' bill which would require that local licensing authorities ``shall'' or must issue a concealed handgun license to a person who passes a background check and a safety course. Notably, the legislature waited until after the election to pass the legislation. The current law in our state now gives local gun boards discretion to issue concealed gun licenses where a need is shown. Current law allows local gun boards--each made up of a local sheriff, a county prosecutor and a designee of the State police--to determine who should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun. The legislation before the state legislature would take discretion away from local law enforcement and allow virtually any applicant to carry a concealed handgun. In May of 1999, when the State Legislature last took up this bill, a coalition of law enforcement groups led the fight against it. Law enforcement soundly rejects the proliferation of concealed weapons in our communities and have warned that this legislation will move Michigan in a dangerous direction. The Michigan Law Enforcement Coalition issued the following statement about the bill: Current law authorizes a local gun board made up of local law enforcement officials to issue CCW [Carry Concealed Weapons] licenses to those citizens who show a demonstrated need to carry a concealed weapon. Legislation that would shift the burden of proof, requiring the board to issue a permit unless it can state a reason, is a state-mandated ``shall issue'' bill and eliminates local control. The Michigan Law Enforcement Coalition opposes any legislation which strips local gun boards of their discretion and shifts the burden of proof from the applicant to the gun board. The Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police issued this statement: This bill not only puts citizens at risk but will also effect law enforcement officers trying to do a difficult and dangerous job. Officers, already concerned due to the proliferation of handguns, would have even more apprehension knowing that the odds of confronting a concealed weapon have been multiplied. The presence of a gun can make any situation more dangerous. A gun can turn routine arguments into episodes of serious injury or death. During stressful times reasonable people do unreasonable things. The shouting match over a parking space or the fist fight at a sporting event can escalate into a shoot-out when guns are more accessible. Already nearly one-third of all murders committed are the result of an argument according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. The Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police urges the Michigan Legislature to refrain from allowing the proliferation of concealed weapons without adequate safeguards by county licensing authorities. An armed society is a frightened and dangerous society. Law enforcement groups were joined in their opposition to this bill by religious leaders, child advocates, and community leaders. Groups such as the Michigan Catholic Conference, Michigan PTA, Michigan Municipal League, Michigan's Children, Michigan Library Association, Michigan Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals, Michigan Association of Nonpublic Schools-Parent Network, Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, Michigan Association of Theatre Owners, and National Conference for Community and Justice are unified against the ``shall issue'' standard. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Michigan Legislature passed this bill. I believe ``shall issue'' is wrong for Michigan and I have urged the Governor to veto the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I sent to the Governor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the life and accomplishments of a distinguished and principled public servant who served as a Member of Congress from my home state of Michigan, Neil Staebler. For nearly six decades, Neil embodied the very ideals on which this nation was founded. Born in 1905, Neil Staebler is widely credited as a founder of the modern Michigan Democratic Party. However, Neil's greatest desire was to make our government work for all its citizens. Throughout his life, Neil dedicated himself to serving the United States of America. At the age of thirty-seven, he joined the World War II effort by enlisting in the United States Navy, where he served as a lieutenant. After the conclusion of the war, Neil and a group of other distinguished citizens from Michigan, including former Governor G. Mennen Williams, former Congresswoman and Lieutenant Governor Martha Griffiths, and Martha's husband Hicks, helped to re-shape the Michigan Democratic Party and alter the landscape of Michigan politics. They sought to reinvigorate the Democratic Party and make it more responsive to the will and the needs of Michigan's citizens. Their efforts led to a renewed vibrancy within the Michigan Democratic Party, and propelled Neil to the chairmanship of the Party. Neil served as state chairman for over a decade, and was able to use his position to encourage active political participation by all people. In addition to serving as state chairman and winning a seat to Congress in 1962, he ran an unsuccessful but hard fought challenge of Governor George Romney in 1964. While he was a loyal member of the Democratic Party, Neil Staebler was first and foremost committed to our nation's institutions and the need for all citizens to participate in the democratic process. President Gerald Ford recognized Neil's commitment to civic participation when he appointed him to serve on the first Federal Elections Commission. Throughout this year's election, people of differing political allegiances have remarked on the stable and resilient nature of our nation's institutions. Our health as a democracy is due, in a large part, to the dedication and efforts of individuals like Neil Staebler. Neil Staebler was one of the true lions of Michigan and American politics. I am sure that my Senate colleagues will join me in honoring the memory of Neil Staebler, and in wishing his wife Burnette and their family well in the years ahead.