Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bryan, for purposes of clarification with respect to one definition in the Intelligence Authorization bill. And that's the definition of ``classified information'' in Section 304 of the bill which amends Section 798A of Title 18. Section 304 establishes as a crime the willful disclosure of classified information to an unauthorized person. In paragraph (c)(2) it defines ``classified information'' as ``information that the person knows or has reason to believe has been properly classified by appropriate authorities, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive Order. . .'' Mr. President, I would like to ask the Vice Chairman's assurance that this bill is not intended to alter in any way the existing definitions of classified information contained in other statutes relevant to the protection of classified information and whistleblower rights. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this year's VA, HUD Appropriations bill contains $1 million for the City of Detroit for the Detroit River walkway or promenade. The riverfront is a focal point of Detroit's redevelopment efforts in connection with the City's upcoming 300th anniversary and plans are underway to construct an extensive, pedestrian-friendly walkway or promenade along the shoreline. I have personally been able to obtain support from this body for that purpose. The grant provided for in this bill will help defray the costs of the project, such as land acquisition, walkway installation and building demolition, and will help give Detroit a world-class waterfront. We also have before the Senate today two very important amendments to this bill. The first would strike language in the report which delays the Environmental Protection Agency from making a final regulation for arsenic in drinking water. The National Academy of Sciences has found that the current regulations for the levels of arsenic in our water are unacceptable. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to lower the standard from the current 50 parts per billion to 5 parts per billion. I support that proposal and regret that I had to vote against this amendment. However, this amendment contained two provisions and it is the other provision I do not support. That part of this amendment would strike language in the report which prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from designating an area in nonattainment under the Clean Air Act pursuant to the 8-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone. I agree that an ozone standard should be in place to protect public health and the environment. However, the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to issue the 8-hour standard is currently under review by the United States Supreme Court. The Court will hear argument on November 7 to decide whether to uphold a Court of Appeals decision that invalidated the 8-hour standard on the grounds that the agency had assumed an ``unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.'' Even the EPA has agreed that it cannot actually implement efforts with respect to the 8-hour standard. Until the Supreme Court hears this case, we do not know whether the EPA even had the authority to make this new rule. Therefore, I agree that the EPA should refrain from using the standard--a standard that may be struck down as unenforceable--until the Supreme Court has made its determination regarding the constitutionality of the EPA's actions. Now this isn't a frivolous matter. A nonattainment designation can detrimentally affect an area and, if not justified, would cause needless economic hardship, such as costly transportation conformity measures, should the Supreme Court rule that the 8-hour standard is unenforceable. Further, this standard could impose unfair economic burdens on a number of communities in Michigan that suffer from significant ozone and other pollution transported from more severely polluted areas. And it could be all for nought if the Supreme Court strikes down the standard. Mr. President, I support the goals of the Clean Air Act. However, it needs to be applied in a common sense equitable manner if it is to retain the support of the American People. It is not equitable to designate an area in nonattainment if that designation may become null and void in a matter of months. For these reasons I voted against the Boxer Amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. The Great Waters program, authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, assesses air deposition as a source of toxic contamination to key water bodies, including the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Research suggests that at least half of all new toxic pollution loadings entering the Great Lakes may be transported and deposited by the atmosphere. Consistent funding for the monitoring of air deposition of toxic contaminants is especially critical at this time as the international community completes negotiations of an international treaty on persistent organic pollutants. The Great Waters program will provide a key component of the database used to judge the effectiveness of this international agreement in lowering the toxic contaminants entering the Great Lakes, and other great waters of the United States, from foreign sources.

Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Missouri, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, agree with these clarifications?

Mr. LEVIN. Is it understood that the Environmental Protection Agency has the discretion to define ``threat to public health'' and ``urgent case'' as those terms are applied to the exceptions? Further, is it understood that the EPA has the discretion to define ``properly considered.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this Manager's Amendment contains language which would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take no action to initiate or order the use of dredging or invasive remedial technologies where a final plan has not been adopted prior to October 1, 2000, or where such activities are not now occurring until the NAS report has been completed and its findings have been properly considered by the Agency. Would the Senator from Maryland be willing to clarify a few questions about this language?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman for his continuing leadership on this matter. dredging

Mr. LEVIN. First, I want to compliment the Chairman and the Ranking Member, Ms. Mikulski, for bringing this bill to the Senator floor and for the Subcommittee's attention to the health, rehabilitation and research programs funded by this bill that are critical to our Nation's veterans. I also want to compliment the Chairman and the Ranking Member for the subcommittee's report language that urges the VA's Rehabilitation Research Office to conduct a demonstration project to assess the impact of a new mobility technology on the ability of veterans to perform work functions, thereby leading to increased opportunities for veterans with disabilities to return to work. This innovative mobility device is a major advance in that it has the ability to climb stairs, traverse all terrain and balance the seated user at standing eye-level. It should, I hope, provide veterans who have mobility impairments with significant additional opportunities in the workplace. The demonstration project called for by the Subcommittee's language will help clarify the additional employment opportunities that such a device should create for our Nation's veterans. I thank the Subcommittee for its assistance in making process on this matter. With new and emerging technologies becoming available that can assist veterans with disabilities, it is vital that the VA keep pace with the marketplace and ensure that veterans with disabilities have access to these advancements. I have had the pleasure of seeing this new mobility device perform its functions and it clearly holds great promise. I am hopeful that this demonstration project will show a significant impact that this device can have on the ability of veterans with disabilities to return to work and I am eager on review the findings of the demonstration. Would the Chairman agree that the demonstration that is requested in the Subcommittee's language be completed by May 1, 2001?

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Chairman of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank him for his contribution to this debate, so many debates of this body. I am going to be briefer than I had actually planned to because our good friends from Alabama and Kansas have been waiting for some time. I do want to spend a couple more minutes. One of the items in this conference report which should be noted is the fact that we have agreed to the language in the Senate bill that would replace the Army's School of the Americas with a new Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. This new institute is going to provide professional education and training to military personnel, law enforcement personnel, and civilian officials of Western Hemisphere countries in areas such as leadership development, counterdrug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief, and human rights. The legislation specifies that the curriculum of this institution include mandatory instruction for each student of a minimum of 8 hours of instruction on human rights, the rule of law, on due process, on civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society. In a very significant addition, we have a Board of Visitors, which includes, among others, four Members of Congress and six members from academia, the religious community, and the human rights community, to review the institute's curriculum and its instruction. The Board of Visitors will submit an annual report to the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State, will submit an annual report to Congress on the operation of the institute. I am hoping that this will be a positive, new chapter and that some of the controversial history of the School of the Americas can now be, in fact, in the history books and that we can turn to a new approach in terms of our relationship with the leadership, both civilian and military, in the democratic countries of the Western Hemisphere. We have some important beliefs that we want to share with others in democratic societies about civilian control of the military and human rights. These and other subjects, such as due process, are vital to us and, we believe, vital to the success of any democratic institution. They have been under challenge, under stress in too many countries in the Western Hemisphere. They have been too often violated. We have a positive role to play in this area. This provision, particularly now with the kind of Board of Visitors we are going to have that includes members of the religious community, human rights communities, and Members of Congress, I think is now going to make it possible for us to have a new Western Hemisphere Institute which is going to have a proud record of achievement. Second, the bill contains an amendment that I offered to prohibit DOD from selling to the general public any armor-piercing ammunition or armor-piercing components that may have been declared excess to the Department's needs. This prohibition was enacted on a one-year basis in last year's Defense Appropriations Act, and Senator Durbin has introduced a bill in the Senate to make the ban permanent. There is no possible justification for selling armor-piercing ammunition to the general public, and I am pleased that we have taken this step toward enacting the ban into permanent law. Third, the conferees rejected House language that would have effectively restricted the bidding when DoD privatizes its utility to the sole utility authorized by a state government to operate in that particular area. The conference agreement requires competitive bidding, with a level playing field for all bidders, when DoD privatizes these assets, and allows DoD to determine the rates they will pay after privatization as a matter of contract rather than by state regulation. The conference agreement also protects people on military installations by requiring DoD to enforce prevailing health and safety standards. Mr. President, this is a good bill as far as it goes. But I am deeply disappointed, however, by the failure of the conference to include several important provisions that were added in the Senate. First, I am disappointed that conferees refused to include title XV of the Senate bill--the Kennedy hate crimes legislation--in the conference report despite the clear support of a majority of both Houses for this legislation. Hate crimes are a special threat in a society founded on ``liberty and justice for all.'' Too many acts of violent bigotry in recent years have put our nation's commitment to fairness to all our citizens in jeopardy. When Matthew Shepard, a gay student was severely beaten and left for dead or James Byrd, Jr., was dragged to his death behind a pick-up truck, it was not only destructive of the victims and their families, but threatens more broadly to others, and to the victims' communities, and to our American ideals. When a member of the Aryan Nations walked into a Jewish Community Center day school and fired more than 70 rounds from his Uzi submachine gun, and then killed a Filipino-American federal worker because he was considered a ``target of opportunity,'' it not only affected the families of the victims and their communities, but the broad group of which they were a part of. The conferees had an opportunity to address this problem and send a message that America is an all-inclusive nation--one that does not tolerate acts of violence based on bigotry and discrimination. Sadly, we failed to do so. Despite a 232-192 vote in the House of Representatives instructing the conferees to adopt the Senate provision, the House majority refused. And then despite a 57-42 vote in the Senate to make the hate crimes legislation part of the bill, the Senate conferees voted 11-9 to drop the legislation. Mr. President, this issue will not go away. If this Congress will not pass legislation addressing the acts of hatred and violence that terrorize Americans every day, I am confident that another Congress will, and I will continue to work toward that objective. The Senate bill also included landmark legislation authored by Senator Cleland that would have permitted our men and women in uniform to extend the benefits of the GI bill to family members in appropriate circumstances, and would have addressed an inequity toward disabled veterans by eliminating the requirement that disability pay be deducted dollar-for-dollar from retirement pay. I am disappointed that we were unable to find a way to include these important provisions. Overall, however, this is a bill which should become law. Once again, I want to thank our chairman, Senator Warner, all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the staff on both sides of the aisle, for their long hours of hard work on this legislation. I hope the Senate will join us in passing this bill and sending it to the President for signature. I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, for his fine leadership, and all the members of the committee and our staffs. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do not know if that is a unanimous consent request or not.

Mr. LEVIN. If my good friend from Nebraska would yield for one moment for me to comment on that, the situation we are in is the following: We were to use all of the time on the conference report prior to turning to the point of order. We were to either use it or yield it back. We have not done that yet. Yet the Senator from Virginia is suggesting we turn to the point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. If I could just finish my thought, I fully agree with the determination to protect the Senator from Texas. On the other hand, I do not know where that leaves us in terms of this unanimous consent agreement. And if I could complete my thought, everyone reasonably wants to have some idea as to when the votes will begin, and to a large extent that is going to depend upon Senator Gramm's decision of how much time he wants to use of his time. I want to, as a factual matter, see if my good friend from Virginia has the same understanding. Both of us have time remaining, I believe, on our time. The 2 hours under the control of the chairman, how much of that time, if I may ask the Chair, is remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Is that time now still remaining under the approach we are taking, if we turn to----

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would concur in that approach that we yield back the remainder of our time on the conference report. I understand Senator Wellstone has yielded back the remainder of his time. That would leave 1 hour under the control of Senator Gramm. We would then modify the unanimous consent agreement so that hour, in effect, would be placed into this second tier of debates.

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection to that. I think that is a good course.

Mr. LEVIN. For exceeding the caps of the budget resolution.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute for a question of the chairman of the Budget Committee?

Mr. LEVIN. While the good chairman is here, I ask a factual question: What is the estimate as to how much the appropriations bill that we are about to vote on in the next few days will go over the discretionary ceiling in the budget resolution?

Mr. LEVIN. We predict it is $40 billion for 1 year.

Mr. LEVIN. I say it is not the case. We have heard the figure. Is it clear that there will be a point of order that will lie against one of these appropriations bills coming up?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, at some point there will be a vote on a waiver of the Budget Act for that purpose--I don't want to estimate the number of billions because I am not privy to it--but for a significant amount of money. I want to put that in this context. This is not going to be the last time this year that there is going to be a vote on whether to waive the Budget Act because the ceiling is exceeded. I fully agree with Senator Domenici. I couldn't agree more in terms of what his comment was about Senator Kerrey's instincts. As always, he seems to me honest and open. That is what this point of order is going to force. Even though I will vote for waiving the Budget Act--I am going to vote that way on this point of order--I must say that I think it is very important that this point of order be made. It is so important that if Senator Kerrey had not made it, I was going to make it, because I think the Senate has got to understand what we are doing. I think we are doing the right thing. But we are not going to be doing it quietly in a closed way, which is hidden. We are going to be doing it openly or we are not going to do it at all. Maybe there will not be enough votes to do it at all. But the important point that Senator Kerrey and others are making, it seems to me, No. 1, is in their judgment we should not do it. That is the matter of disagreement. But where I think there is agreement is when we do it and when we consider it, we should not be burying it in some bill that nobody knows about. That is why this point of order is valuable, in my judgment. I thank the Senator for his comments. One other point: That the size of this item is a 10-year item. The question I asked the Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee, was approximately how much will the appropriations bills for just 1 year go above the budget ceiling and discretionary spending. It is that figure which perhaps by the end of the evening I can try to get an estimate of from the staff of the Appropriations Committee. But it will be a significant amount. We are going to have to vote on it. I hope we vote on that explicitly. I hope we vote on that in that final appropriations bill just as openly as we are going to vote on this. I hope it is not just going to be buried in the final appropriations bill and fly through here without a conscious decision on whether or not to waive the Budget Act. Otherwise, there is no fiscal discipline at all. If it is not done openly, there will be even less fiscal discipline. I want my comments to go against my time, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Reed, who has been waiting the longest, wishes 5 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, you are correct. As indicated in the report language, the conferees are concerned about all employees affected by the defense Department policies, and we intended this provision to cover all affected employees at the Iowa facility and similar facilities. We will join with you to make sure the Defense Department implements this provision according to these intentions.