Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate completes action on this important legislation, I want to again congratulate the chairman of the Committee, Senator Warner, for his leadership and determination in completing this important bill. I also want to thank and congratulate all of the members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this bill over the past year. The subcommittee chairpersons and ranking members carried the brunt of the workload in conference, but the fact is that every member of the committee played an active and constructive role in this legislation, from the committee and subcommittee hearings in the spring to the committee markup, to floor action and finally in conference. Finally, Mr. President, I want to say a special word of thanks to the staff of the Armed Services Committee. The majority staff under the capable leadership of Les Brownlee works very cooperatively with the minority staff under David Lyles. The Committee's long tradition of bipartisanship among the members extends to the staff as well. They truly work together as a single team for the benefit of the men and women of the armed forces and for the national security of our nation. In addition to David Lyles, I want to thank all of the members of the Armed Services Committee minority staff for their efforts this year: Peter Levine, Rick DeBobes; Richard Fieldhouse; Creighton Greene; Mike McCord; Gary Leeling; Dan Cox; Chris Cowart; and Jan Gordon. I also want to recognize the efforts of the associate staff members of all of the Democratic members of the committee for their efforts this year.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Vote

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join the chairman in that sentiment. This is an extraordinarily strong vote for a Defense authorization bill. I think there were 90-plus votes for it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 contains direct spending that far exceeds the Armed Services Committee's allocation of mandatory spending under the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this conference report would increase mandatory spending by over $19 billion over the next 5 years, and by $61 billion over the next 10 years. Most of this increased spending is for the new ``Medigap'' entitlement for Medicare-eligible military retirees. This new benefit would add $18.7 billion in new direct spending over the next 5 years, and $59.9 billion in new direct spending over the next 10 years. This year's congressional budget resolution established a $400 million reserve fund for mandatory spending on military health care benefits over the next 5 years; the mandatory spending on health care in this conference report would exceed that allowance by $18.3 billion. The net cost to the federal budget is somewhat less, because current, discretionary spending must be subtracted out. While the net cost to the federal budget--that is, the amount of the projected future surpluses that these health care benefits would consume--is somewhat smaller, it is still a very substantial amount of money. The health care provisions in this conference report, when both the mandatory and discretionary components are added together and the costs that are moved from one category to another are netted out, would require $14 billion of new spending over the next 5 years and $40 billion of new spending over the next 10 years. That is a lot of money. This new spending was not contemplated in this year's congressional budget resolution. When Congress enacted the budget resolution earlier this year, we provided only $400 million for new military health care benefits over the next 5 years. So this conference report contains over $13.6 billion over the amount of direct spending on health care that was approved in the budget resolution. I support the new medical benefits provided by this conference report. I support them because I believe that it is incumbent upon the Congress to answer the call of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to address shortcomings in the health care that we provide for our military personnel, military retirees, and their families. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, told the Armed Services Committee earlier this year. For years our recruiters have promised health care for life for career members and their families. As we all know, that is not what they receive. . . . Keeping our promise of ensuring quality health care for military retirees is not only the right thing to do, it also is a pragmatic decision because it sends a strong signal signal to all those considering a career in uniform. General Shelton went on to point out that we have actual recruiting posters that specifically state that military members and their families would receive health care for life. That, he said, is ``basically what we committed to at the time they were recruited to the armed forces.'' Last year, we enacted pay and retirement reform provisions to send a strong message that we recognize the demands that we place on our men and women in uniform, the circumstances in which they must live and work, and the fact that we often pay them less, and expect them to do far more, than employes in the private sector. The health care provisions in this year's bill should send an equally strong message, and will hopefully have an equally strong positive impact on military recruitment and retention. I believe that providing these health care benefits is the right thing to do, and that we should use the waiver open to us to provide them. At the same time, however, Senator Kerrey has done the right thing in raising a point of order relative to these provisions under the Budget Act. We have the responsibility, if we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars on a new benefit, to do so openly and in accordance with our budget rules. Those rules allow us to exceed the spending limits we set for ourselves should we deem it wise and prudent to do so. We do so by voting to waive the Budget Act. That is our way of standing up openly and acknowledging what we are doing, acknowledging that we are about to use some of our surplus for a benefit that was not included in the fiscal plan the Congress adopted in April. We owe it to ourselves and our constituents to be willing to stand up and say either we think this is a good idea worth doing and we should waive the Budget Act, or to say we shouldn't be doing this and voting not to waive it. There is one other significant new entitlement in this conference report and that is the compensation program for contract and federal employees of the Department of Energy who became ill due to their exposure to radiation, beryllium, or other hazardous materials while working to build our nuclear weapons. While much less expensive than the health care benefit, this compensation program also entails direct spending of $1.1 billion over 5 years, and $1.6 billion over 10 years, that was not provided for in the Budget Resolution. As with the health coverage for our military retirees, I think this is the right thing to do, but we have to be willing to waive the Budget Act to do it. Either this bill is wrong, or the congressional budget resolution was wrong in the limitations that it placed on Federal spending. In my view, the problem is not with this bill, but with the budget resolution itself, which was never realistic in the amount of money that it provided for this and other purposes. I believe that the American people would want us to provide improved access to health care and a comprehensive pharmacy benefit for military retirees--and that they would want us to take similar action on behalf of other retirees. Others may disagree, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we support the strict spending limits in the congressional budget resolution and that we also support the new entitlement programs in this conference report, which would violate those spending limits. The two are inconsistent, and we must make a choice. That is what this vote is about. I commend Senator Kerrey for raising a point of order under the Budget Act. For the reasons that I have stated, I will vote to waive the point of order and allow this conference report--and the new benefits that it includes--to become law. I again quote from the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he told us earlier this year: For years our recruiters promised health care for life for career members and their families. As we all know, that is not what they receive. . . . Keeping our promise of ensuring quality health care for military retirees is not only the right thing to do, it also is a pragmatic decision because it sends a strong signal to all those considering a career in uniform. Last year, we increased the retirement benefit to where it previously had been 10 years before when we said it would be 50 percent of your base pay when you retire, rather than the 40 percent which it had been reduced to 15 years ago. We did not make that subject to people's earnings. There is no earnings test. That was an entitlement. It was a retirement benefit. It was a recruiting aid. It was a retention aid. So is this. Most important, it is keeping a commitment which has been made to the people who joined the service. I know very well Senator Kerrey did not join for that purpose. Indeed, many do not join for that purpose. But the expert recruiters and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tell us this is a very important recruiting and retention tool, No. 1. No. 2, it keeps a commitment which has been made, and when the Government makes that commitment, we should keep it. Whether or not the private company keeps it or not, we may not have any control over it. Senator Kerrey raised the question of what happens if a private company breaks a commitment. That is very different from when we, the people, make a commitment to our men and women in the military.

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Cleland.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me join our chairman in commending Senator Byrd for the way in which he worked so hard for this commission, and for the valuable function this commission is going to perform for all of us. Whichever side of that debate we were on in terms of PNTR, and however we voted on it, this commission is going to be very helpful to all of us. I thank my friend from West Virginia.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank our dear friend from West Virginia for his nice remarks about the chairman and myself. I am wondering if we could line up some speakers. We have Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Cleland on our side who need some time on the conference report before we get down to the point of order. I have not had a chance to talk to Senator Hollings on that issue. But I am wondering if we could set up a line of speakers with Senator Reed for 5 minutes on our side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may interject, I thank Senator Inhofe for the work he has done on Vieques. I ask unanimous consent that, following the remarks of Senator Inhofe, Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and Senator Robb then be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman will yield, it is my understanding under the existing unanimous-consent agreement after the 2 hours under your control, either used or yielded back, 2\1/2\ hours under my control, either used or yielded back, the 1 hour under the control of Senator Gramm of Texas, either used or yielded back, and Senator Wellstone, I believe, has already utilized his time, at that point we then turn to the point of order, and Senator Kerrey would be recognized for that purpose.

Mr. LEVIN. We jointly ask unanimous consent the order of speakers be followed for such length of time that we outlined.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the good Senator from New York. Mr. President, let me now continue with my remarks relative to the Defense authorization bill itself. The most far-reaching step that we have taken in this conference report is to answer the call of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to address shortcomings in the health care program. We provide health care for our military personnel and our retirees and their families. But there are shortcomings. There are gaps. There are holes. There are lapses. We are trying to fill those. We are trying to make the commitment of health care to our military men and women and to their families, and after they retire, a real-world commitment. We want to fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to those who complete a military career by providing, as we do in this bill, that retired members and their families remain in the TRICARE health program for life. When they become eligible for Medicare, TRICARE would serve as a Medigap-type policy and pay virtually all costs for medical care that are not covered by Medicare itself. This means that retirees will be able to choose any medical provider that accepts Medicare, and TRICARE would pay the deductibles and the copayments. Second, the budget request that we approved improves access to health care for families of active duty members by eliminating deductibles and copayments for care provided by the TRICARE program. We would also make TRICARE Prime available to the families of service members assigned to remote locations where they don't have access to military treatment facilities. And we provide for physical exams for family members when required for school enrollment. Finally, we would address the rising price of prescription drugs by providing a generous pharmacy benefit for military retirees. Under this provision, prescriptions filled in a military facility will be free. Prescriptions filled through the military's national mail-order pharmacy will cost $8 for a 90-day supply. Retirees would pay a 20- percent copayment for prescriptions filled in a way which is on an approved list of retail pharmacies. There is the so-called ``network retail pharmacy.'' They would pay a 25-percent copay for prescriptions filled in a non-network retail pharmacy; in other words, from a pharmacy not on the approved list. I am appalled, as so many Members of this body are appalled, by the rising costs of pharmaceuticals in this country, and by the growing gap between the prices paid for drugs by our citizens and people who live in other countries--frequently, by the way, for prescription drugs manufactured in this country and often subsidized either directly by taxpayers in the form of NIH grants to people who develop those drugs and do the research on them, and indirectly through the Tax Code. We provide credits for research and development. We have this gap between what our citizens pay and citizens in other countries pay for drugs manufactured in the United States. We are not curing that gap in this bill, except we are taking a step relative to military retirees. This step at least addresses that problem for military retirees. It is my hope that before the end of this session or in the next Congress that we will provide a similar benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. The importance of this prescription drug program is shown by the effort that was made to achieve it. The importance of this benefit is reflected in the fact that military retirees brought to our attention the extraordinary expense to them of prescription drugs. We are responding to that. We have a moral obligation to respond to that because we made a commitment to them. This country has a moral obligation surely to our seniors--I think to all of us, but at least to our seniors--to make prescription drugs affordable. We haven't made the same kind of commitment technically to our seniors. But surely we should feel the moral obligation to make sure our seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs. That commitment that we surely should feel, I believe, will be advanced by this action that we are taking relative to our military retirees. Hopefully it will prod us to do the same for all of our seniors as we do for our military retirees in the area of prescription drugs. We cannot overlook the fact that these provisions are going to be expensive to implement. This bill would establish a new entitlement program for military retiree health care at an estimated cost of $60 billion. The $60 billion cost of this program is over the next 10 years. It is actually, technically, a $40 billion net cost to the Government for reasons that I will go into when we get to the waiver of the point of order relative to the budget. It is a significant amount of money, $60 billion of direct spending, or $40 billion net, over the next 10 years. Either one of those numbers is a big number. We should be very conscious of what we are doing. That is why it is very important this body act openly and forthrightly on this proposal. Senator Warner mentioned that we had made a proposal in committee which would have achieved this same goal on a phased-in basis, first for 2 years and then permanently, in a way which would have met the requirements of the Budget Act without creating a point of order. In the wisdom of the conferees, we made this a permanent benefit. It is the right thing to do. But there is a cost to it which exceeds the amount of money this committee has been authorized to allocate under our mandatory spending limits. This body will then be offered the opportunity and presented with the question: Do we wish to waive that limit, to use the waiver authority as provided for us in the Budget Act, in order to approve this permanent benefit? That will be argued at a later time in this debate. I intend to vote to waive the Budget Act and permit this benefit to go into effect for our retirees. However, it is important that this body, when it exceeds these spending allocations, does so in a way where everyone has a chance to recognize what it is we are doing in that regard. As I said, there was no provision made in this year's budget resolution for this level of mandatory spending. We were given a very small amount, closer to half a billion. There was a way we could have operated within that level in a 2-year program, then expecting to make that permanent later on in a way which would have complied with the Budget Act. But this conference went in a different direction. It is a reasonable approach, perhaps even a more straightforward approach. In any event, it does create this point of order which we now need to address in this bill. I believe these steps to address problems in the military health care system are the right thing to do. Again, we just should do so openly. We should not do so blindly. The problem is not with this bill but in the budget resolution itself, which is not realistic in the amount of money it provided for this and for other purposes. The conference report also includes a title numbered 35 in the Senate bill which is the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. This Nation now has a great debt to the many workers in our nuclear weapons facilities who played such a vital role in winning the cold war, a deterrent which they produced which was able to deter aggression to help maintain security and peace. But we now know that many of these workers were exposed to dangerous radioactive and chemical materials in the course of their work, and they are now suffering from debilitating and often fatal illnesses as a result. It is simple justice that these workers and their families should be compensated for those illnesses. The Department of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act provides that compensation, and it does so in a fair and balanced manner. We were able to overcome significant opposition in the House of Representatives and provide compensation to the loyal Department of Energy workers who were poisoned by that work in support of our Nation's defense. Now there is a cost. We should be aware of that cost. It is a cost of $1.1 billion over 5 years and about $1.6 billion over 10 years. I am particularly pleased that the conferees rejected a House provision which would have prohibited the continued deployment of United States ground combat forces in Kosovo under certain circumstances. What the House provision said was, if the specified contributions by our allies for civilian policing and reconstruction were not met by a target date, then our troops would automatically be withdrawn. First of all, our European allies are almost to those levels. They are now clearly the senior partner in Kosovo. That is the right thing. We want our allies to be senior partners and the United States to be the junior partner. Many times we are not the senior partner. That is a very good development. It would be a mistake, and this body voted it would be a mistake, to put in an automatic withdrawal date because of the uncertainty that would create, the weakening of the NATO alliance which would be created, and the negative impact of morale on our men and women who would then believe, somehow or other between now and that automatic removal date, that our troops may be removed. That kind of uncertainty is not healthy either in terms of who our adversary was and could still become theoretically; it is not healthy in terms of the NATO alliance; it is not healthy in terms of the morale of our men and women in uniform. We have all put pressure on our European allies to do more. It is something in which many of us, if not most of us, believe. They are now doing more. Our response should be a positive response rather than this automatic threat that unless they meet a specified numerical target by a fixed date, something would automatically happen without any further action of the Congress. The process in the House bill, which was rejected by the Senate after a lengthy floor debate, but adopted by the House, would have led to the automatic withdrawal of our forces, even if there was no action in the future by Congress. That at least, in my judgment, would not have been a responsible exercise of congressional authority but rather its abdication. Putting this on automatic pilot would not have been the best way to exercise congressional authority. We have the power of the purse, and we have a right to exercise it. If we want to withdraw troops, we have the right to do that. If we have troops in too many places, we have the right to say: Pull them out, don't spend any money to keep them there. We have that responsibility. If we are in too many places, we are the ones with the power of the purse. We can say: Pull forces out of here, pull forces out of there. The specific effort to do that was made relative to Kosovo. It was rejected. I am glad, by the way, that both the candidates for President rejected that approach. But if we are going to do it, we ought to be accountable ourselves for doing it and not put something on automatic pilot so that something will happen in the future even if we do nothing between now and then. That is not the way I believe the power of the purse should be used. I believe very deeply in the power of the purse, and I believe there are occasions when we want to say we believe that troops should not be in a certain place and we are not going to provide money for it. But that ought to be done directly and not be done at a future date in the absence of a decision by the Congress. The conferees also rejected a provision that would have placed burdensome restrictions on our efforts to support the antidrug effort in Colombia. We rejected a provision that undermined our ability to implement agreements designed to prevent development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. We rejected a provision which implied that a national missile defense would be deployed immediately without regard to the system's operational effectiveness or affordability or the impact that it might have on our overall national security. Those were unwise provisions, in my judgment, and I am pleased they were not included in the conference report. I am pleased the conferees did adopt a series of provisions implementing the agreement between President Clinton and the Governor of Puerto Rico regarding the status of training exercises by the Navy and Marine Corps on the island of Vieques. Training on Vieques, as we know, was suspended last year after the tragic death of a security guard at the training range. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and others have testified that there is just no adequate substitute for that training on the island of Vieques. As of today, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has lived up to its obligations under the agreement. The training range on Vieques has been cleared of protesters with the assistance of the government of Puerto Rico, and Navy training exercises have now resumed on the island with the use of inert ordnance, as provided for in the agreement. The Navy is working with the citizens of Vieques and others throughout Puerto Rico towards the resumption of live-fire training on Vieques. This bill, hopefully, provides the framework for the resumption of that training. The President's budget request added $12 billion of defense spending to last year's appropriated levels, and the Congressional Budget Resolution added an additional $4.5 billion. For the most part, the conference report spends this money wisely, to meet needs that were identified as priorities by the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to accelerate items that are included in the Future Years Defense Plan. The bill also provides funding support and legislative guidance for key Department of Defense priorities, including the Army's transformation plan and the Joint Strike Fighter Program. On the first point, the conference report provides appropriate support for the Army transformation plan, the plan that was put forward by Secretary Caldera and General Shinseki. The conferees concluded that the Army needs to transform itself into a lighter, more lethal, survivable, and tactically mobile force. We approved all of the funds requested by the Army for this purpose, and we actually added some research money to the amount requested to help the Army in the long- term transformation process. At the same time, we directed the Army to prepare a detailed roadmap for the transformation initiative and to conduct appropriate testing and experimentation to ensure that the transformation effort is successful. Mr. President, I have a few more minutes but I have taken a little longer than I expected. I would like, at this point, if the Senator from Minnesota is ready, to yield to him for his presentation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge a distinguished public servant and tireless advocate for our nation's cities, Ben Johnson. The people in my hometown of Detroit, Michigan, realize that ours is a nation of cities. Later this month, many individuals will gather there to celebrate the career of this man who devoted his life to ensuring that all Americans are able to share in our nation's wealth and prosperity. Ben Johnson has dedicated his professional life to expanding opportunity for all Americans. For over two decades, he has tirelessly worked to assist communities, particularly minority communities, in their efforts to fully participate in the pursuit of the American dream. Since 1993, Mr. Johnson has honorably served in the Clinton Administration. During his tenure in this Administration, he worked in the Office of Public Liaison, and served as both a Special and a Deputy Assistant to the President. Currently, Ben Johnson serves as the Assistant to the President and Director of The White House Office on the President's One America Initiative. The One America Initiative office he oversees is the first freestanding White House office established to close opportunity gaps that exist for minorities and the underserved in this nation. In all of these capacities, he has shown a steadfast commitment to ensure economic opportunities for all people. Serving in the Clinton Administration was not Mr. Johnson's first job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. During the Carter Administration he was Director of Consumer Programs and Special Assistant to Esther Peterson, the Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs. In the years between his service at the White House, Mr. Johnson served in a variety of capacities within the District of Columbia's city government, and worked to ensure that the residents of our nation's capital lived in an efficient, safe and clean city. Ben Johnson can take pride in his long career of service and dedication to assisting minorities and the underserved in our nation. He has been a vocal advocate for the people of Detroit and all the United States. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting Ben Johnson, and in wishing him well in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senators from Maryland and Missouri. great waters program

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today to acknowledge a distinguished public servant, from my home state of Michigan, Judge Roman S. Gribbs, who will be retiring from the bench of the Michigan Court of Appeals, at the close of this year. In November, hundreds of his colleagues, friends and family will celebrate the career of this gentleman of the bench who played a distinct role in shaping Michigan's history. Judge Gribbs dedicated his academic and professional life to studying, teaching, enforcing, practicing and interpreting the laws that govern the citizens of Michigan. He excelled in his studies at the University of Detroit where he received his Juris Doctorate in 1954, graduating Magna Cum Laude. He taught at his alma mater from 1954 through 1956 and served as an Adjunct Professor and Faculty member at the University of Michigan and the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He implemented the law as an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor from 1956 through 1964 and in his service to the City of Detroit as presiding Traffic Court Referee. In 1968, Roman Gribbs' career in the law took a new turn when he was appointed, then elected, Sheriff of Wayne County. His commitment to strong and fair enforcement of the law earned him respect far beyond the boundaries of Michigan's most populous county. In 1969, Sheriff Gribbs was elected mayor of the city of Detroit, just 2 years after the city had endured one of the most destructive civil disturbances in the Nation's history. Under his leadership, the people of Detroit began to heal the city's wounds, to bridge their differences and to build their common future. As a newly elected member of Detroit's City Council in those years, I can testify with first hand knowledge to the debt this great American city owes to the calm, determined leadership of Mayor Roman Gribbs. After stepping down as mayor, Roman Gribbs followed his love for the law and won a seat on the bench of the Third Judicial Circuit and then on the Michigan Court of Appeals where he has served the people of Michigan with a high standard of ethics and courage. In addition to being a dedicated man of the bench, Judge Gribbs also finds solace in his involvement in the arts. His interest in the humanities and the cultural arts is evidenced through his service as a member of the Founders Society of the Detroit Institute of Art, the Detroit Historical Society and the Michigan Opera Theater. Despite all that Judge Gribbs has accomplished in a life of service to others those of us fortunate enough to have enjoyed his friendship may admire him most for the quiet qualities we have seen in him over many years--his unyielding integrity, his uncommon decency and perhaps most amazingly, given the tumultuous times he has lived in, his gentleness. Judge Gribbs can take pride in his long career of service and dedication to the law and to the people of Michigan. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting this man from Michigan, and in wishing him well in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking up and voting on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Conference Report, which includes the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I commend the sponsors of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It is estimated that approximately 50,000 women and children are trafficked in the United States every year, many of whom are sexually exploited and forced into involuntary servitude. This bill will provide a comprehensive approach to prevent trafficking as well as ensure vigorous prosecution of those involved in this deplorable practice. I am also pleased that this bill includes the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which has provided an unparalleled level of support for programs to end domestic and sexual violence. VAWA grants have made it possible for communities across the nation to provide shelter and counseling for hundreds of thousands of women and their children. Since 1995, more than $1.5 billion has been appropriated under VAWA's grant programs. Michigan has been awarded about $50 million in Federal grants under VAWA. Those grants provided invaluable resources to survivors of domestic and sexual violence in Michigan. For example, Rural grants have permitted 12 rural counties in Michigan to hire full time advocates for providing services to victims through outreach programs. VAWA Civil Legal Assistance Grants have allowed more than 5 Michigan communities to develop Civil Legal Assistance Programs, which provide quality legal assistance to hundreds of women and children. In addition, 35 Sexual Assault Services Programs and more than 20 Sexual Assault Prevention Programs have been created or strengthened in our state as a direct result of VAWA. Furthermore, VAWA has been tremendously successful in the training of judges, court personnel, prosecutors, police and victims' advocates. Mary Keefe, Executive Director of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, explained in a letter to me that ``with the heightened training of police, prosecutors, and other in the criminal justice field, many of these systems are now routinely referring the victims they encounter to domestic violence and rape crisis programs.'' VAWA programs have been especially important to women in rural communities, where support networks had been limited due to distance. Here is just one case of such a victim--forwarded to me from the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence--whose life was possibly saved by a VAWA grant. ``Jamie'' (not her real name) was referred to the Domestic Violence Program by the Prosecutor. Jamie had shared with the prosecutor that she was ``afraid for life,'' and that she was afraid to participate in prosecution because of repercussions she may have to bear from her assailant. She soon fell out of contact with the prosecutor and the case against her assailant was on shaky ground. The county prosecutor referred Jamie to the VAWA funded advocate. She came to the program in January, reluctant and fearful, but open to talking to the advocate. The advocate was able to provide two full days of intensive interaction with this survivor. Counseling her, preparing a safety plan for her and her children, telling her how the legal system works and preparing her for what she could expect each step of the way. The advocate was actually able to pick Jamie up, drive her to court each time, sit by her, reassure her throughout the process, listen to her when she was angry and fearful, explain what was going on, and nurture her through the process of being a witness to this case. The perpetrator was eventually convicted on several counts, and is serving time in the County jail. Jamie has begun picking up the pieces of her life and is hopefully on the road to safety. Despite the successes of VAWA, almost 900,0000 women continue to be victims of domestic violence each year, making it the number one health risk for women between the ages of 15 and 44. This Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization will build on the successes of VAWA by more than doubling the amount available for programs to support women and children subject to domestic abuse. Although I support the underlying Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I am concerned about a provision in this bill referred to as Aimee's Law. When the Senator from Pennsylvania introduced this provision as an amendment to he juvenile justice bill, I was one of the few who voted against it. I understand the positive motive of those who support this provision and I agree that we should act to limit the number of tragedies that occur when persons convicted of serious offenses are paroled and then subsequently commit the same offense, but I do not support this unworkable procedure. I remain concerned that this bill will federalize state criminal court systems. Currently, the crimes covered in this bill are defined differently in different states, which is appropriate since the 50 state court systems handle 95 percent of all criminal cases in this country. It is inappropriate to apply federal definitions and federal sentencing guidelines to criminal cases tried in state courts. I also remain concerned about how the penalties will be imposed since the average terms of imprisonment imposed by states are different than actual lengths of imprisonment and the cost of incarceration can not be known unless one can predict life expectancy. On balance, I will vote for this Conference Report because I strongly support the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in recent years, lobbyists for the National Rifle Association, NRA, have been pressing state legislatures around the country to pass so called ``shall issue'' laws. ``Shall issue'' laws require that licensing authorities shall or must issue concealed weapons permits to those who meet standard eligibility requirements. The state laws take discretion away from local law enforcement agencies, who would ordinarily use their own criteria to determine who should carry a concealed weapon. When such a law was proposed in my home state of Michigan, every major law enforcement organization in the state spoke out against it. Athletes, entertainers, religious leaders and some lawmakers joined them in their public plea to keep concealed firearms off our streets. In the end, although both the State House and Senate passed the ``shall issue'' legislation, lawmakers yielded to public pressure and refused to proceed to a conference committee, thereby rejecting the law. While Michigan's citizens acted quickly to ensure that lawmakers rejected the NRA backed proposal, other state legislatures embraced the law as their own. This week the Los Angeles Times published an extensive report on the effects of the relatively new law that gives Texans the right to carry concealed weapons into public places, including churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and amusement parks. The Times story reveals that since the ``shall issue'' law's inception in 1995, and its expansion in 1997, Texas has issued concealed weapons permits to more than 400 criminals with prior convictions, and has since arrested more than 3,000 licensees. Based on the LA Times investigation, it appears that the law billed as part of an ``anti-crime'' package could really be more accurately described as pro-crime. A recently released study from the Violence Policy Center disclosed that Texans with concealed-carry licenses were 66 percent more likely to be arrested for firearms violations than Texans who did not have such licenses. The LA Times story explains that part of the problem is that in many cases, concealed permits were given to those whose records should have disqualified them. Perhaps the most disturbing case is that of Terry Gist, also known to his friends as ``Holsters'' because of his well- known affection for guns. Before he even applied for his permit to carry a concealed weapon in Texas in 1997, Gist had already been to court for trying to choke his wife and threaten her with a gun (she had a restraining order out against him) and arrested while in the army for brandishing his handgun at a local citizen in Haiti. After he passed the state background check and received his concealed weapons permit in the mail, he was known to carry two semiautomatic handguns, sometimes three, with him at all times. Gist bragged that he displayed one of those guns to a driver during a ``freeway feud.'' In 1998, Gist was arrested and convicted for sexually assaulting an eight-year-old girl who said during the trial that she was afraid he was going to shoot her. The most common category of problems associated with concealed weapons holders, however, are not those of Terry Gist, but those of people like Paul Leuders. Leuders, a Houston computer analyst, became so upset when he almost missed his bus that the concealed weapons licensee took out his gun and shot the bus driver in the chest. Law abiding citizens, armed with concealed weapons, are too often turning what would otherwise be unpleasant but not catastrophic events, such as fender-benders and commuting hassles, into tragedies. The ``shall issue'' laws in Texas and in states around the country don't make us safer, they make us less secure. In addition, they send the wrong message to our children, that the way to deal with the problems of modern life is with a gun. People around the country reject the NRA logic that they are unsafe in public places if they are not armed. Legislatures should do the same. America has come a long way since the days of the wild west. Over the last years our law enforcement agencies have developed better ways to reduce violent crime and keep our streets safe. ``Shall issue'' laws go in the wrong direction by increasing the number of weapons on the streets and the dangers we and our children face.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate today will vote on the confirmation of a number of judicial nominees. I not only have no problem with that, I very much favor it. These nominees deserve a vote. The districts in which they will serve surely deserve to have their nominations acted upon. I believe the Nation, as a whole, deserves to have these nominees, and other nominees awaiting hearings and votes acted on by this Senate as well. The Judiciary Committee held hearings for three of the nominees and approved those nominations less than a week after the nominations were received. Other nominees wait in vain for years just for a hearing. That strikes me as being an arbitrary and inexplicable system, unfair to nominees awaiting hearings, awaiting votes, and unfair to the districts or the circuits in which they would serve if confirmed. I believe it is also unfair--perhaps this is most important of all--to the people who await justice in their courts. Two Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit have been waiting unsuccessfully for a hearing for more than 3\1/2\ years and 1 year respectively. Two women, highly qualified, nominated from Michigan for the Sixth Circuit where there is a severe shortage of judges and an enormous caseload that sits there pending, while they have been waiting for more than 3\1/2\ years and 1 year respectively. Judge Helene White, who is a court of appeals judge in Michigan, was first nominated in January of 1997. Her nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has never been acted upon. She has never been granted a hearing. Kathleen McCree Lewis was nominated to the Sixth Circuit over a year ago. It has been pending before the Judiciary Committee for over a year. No hearing, no action. These are two judicial nominees from my home State of Michigan. Despite there being no objection that I know of to their nominations, and in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, they have been kept in limbo without even a hearing for 3\1/2\ years and 1 year respectively. I believe that is truly unconscionable. In the history of the Senate, no nominee has waited as long as Judge White for a confirmation hearing. The seat that she has been nominated for has been vacant for 5\1/2\ years. It is considered a ``judicial emergency'' by the Judicial Conference of the United States. There is no apparent reason for the denial of hearings for these two nominees. No one has questioned their qualifications for the bench. No one that I know of objects to their candidacies. It is well known Judge White and Ms. Lewis are both talented, hard-working nominees. Each are highly respected for their records which show them to be women of integrity and fairness. Judge White has had a distinguished career. She was a trial judge for 10 years on the Wayne County Circuit Court bench and in 1992 was elected to the Michigan Court of Appeals where she has served ever since. She also serves on the board of directors of the Michigan Legal Services and the board of governors of the American Jewish Committee. Kathleen McCree Lewis is a distinguished appellate practitioner at the Detroit law firm of Dykema Gossett, one of the most prestigious law firms in our State. She also served as a commissioner on the Detroit Civil Service Commission and on the Civic Center Commission. She has argued dozens of cases and is a respected appellate lawyer in the very circuit to which she has been nominated. She also happens to be the daughter of the late Wade McCree, a highly respected judge who served on the Sixth Circuit, and was a former Solicitor General of the United States. If confirmed, Kathleen McCree Lewis will be the first African American woman ever to serve on the Sixth Circuit. Gov. George Bush has said that the Senate should act on nominees within 60 days. That deadline passed years ago for Judge White and for Kathleen McCree Lewis. According to Governor Bush: The Constitution empowers the President to nominate officers of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Then he said: That is clear-cut, straightforward language. It does not empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation. To keep these nominees pending for so long without hearings is unfair to the nominees, particularly where there is no known objection and where there is no explanation for the refusal to grant hearings. Even more important, it is unfair to the citizens served by the court. There is a large backlog of cases in the Sixth Circuit which is a serious concern for not just Michigan but for all the States that are served by that court. Over one-fourth of the judgeships on the Sixth Circuit are currently vacant, and that is among the highest vacancy rate of any circuit court in the country. Judge Gilbert Merritt, who recently served as chief judge of the Sixth Circuit, wrote in a March 20 letter to Chairman Hatch: The court is ``hurting badly and will not be able to keep up with its workload due to the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has acted on none of the nominations to our court.'' Judge Merritt went on to say the following--and this is the former chief judge who still sits on the court. This is what Judge Merritt said: Our court should not be treated in this fashion. The public's business should not be treated this way. The litigants in the Federal courts should not be treated this way. The remaining judges on a court should not be treated this way. The situation in our court is rapidly deteriorating due to the fact that 25 percent of the judgeships are vacant. Each active judge of our court is now participating in deciding more than 550 cases a year--a caseload that is excessive by any standard. In addition, we will have almost 200 death penalty cases that will be facing us before the end of the next year. The Founding Fathers certainly intended the Senate ``advise'' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider any vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo, understaffed and unable to properly carry out their responsibilities for years. That is Judge Merritt's letter. In addition to that, the Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Hatch, received a letter from 14 former presidents of the State bar of Michigan. These include, by the way, Democrats and Republicans. That letter pleads for action relative to the situation on the Sixth Circuit. The Michigan bar presidents wrote in their letter to Senator Hatch that the state of affairs on the Sixth Circuit has ``serious adverse effects on the bar and the administration of justice for our clients. We urge you to promptly schedule hearings for, and to pass to the Senate floor for a vote, the nominations of Judge Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis.'' In the last few months, there have also been several articles and editorials in papers around Michigan calling on the Senate to confirm the court of appeals nominees for Michigan. An editorial in the Detroit Free Press said: The Senate's delay in considering President Clinton's nominations to the [Sixth Circuit] court is unfair to Michigan, to the nominees, and to anyone whose future might be affected by a decision of this court. An editorial in the Observer and Eccentric newspapers urged the Judiciary Committee and its members to ``give two thoughtful and well- respected Michigan lawyers the courtesy of timely hearings on their nominations to the Federal judiciary that is currently hamstrung in carrying out its work.'' An editorial in the Detroit News described the failure to act on Sixth Circuit nominees as ``the sort of die-hard intransigence that should be out of bounds.'' And a Jewish News editorial called the stall a ``travesty of justice.'' If Senators have concerns about something in the records of these Michigan candidates--and no one has raised anything to that effect-- then Senators should air their concerns in a committee hearing and then let the committee vote. It is unfair to Michigan, it is unfair to the citizens who use this court to keep these judicial nominees endlessly in limbo, despite the absence of any objection that I know of to their nominations and with no explanation forthcoming whatsoever. A number of us have spent many hours over the last few years trying to get hearings for these Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nominees from Michigan, and yet two well-qualified candidates, each deserving a hearing and a Senate vote, have been left in limbo with no explanation, no stated objection. What we are doing today in approving these four nominees, it seems to me, is surely our function, totally appropriate, and I believe and hope the nominees will be confirmed. As we do this, we should also focus on nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee, awaiting hearings or awaiting a vote by the committee after a hearing, who are left there no matter how long they have been waiting, sometimes, again, years in the case of Helene White and Barry Goode. We have others who have been waiting since April of last year, June of last year, August of last year, September of last year. I think we can do better than that. We should rise above that kind of nonaction on the part of our Judiciary Committee. No plea from me or from others who have worked with me on these nominations has produced hearings, despite the editorials, despite the letters from the bar associations and from Judge Merritt. Despite all these efforts, we have received just silence and statements about waiting a little longer or ``we'll see'' or ``we'll try.'' We should be better than that. The Constitution wants us to be better than that. I will vote to confirm these nominees whose nominations, in many cases, were sent to the Senate, heard by the Judiciary Committee, and approved by the Judiciary Committee in less than a week. At the same time, I will be thinking of the vacancies that exist on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that have remained unfilled for years, where there is a judicial emergency, an enormous backlog, and where, despite all the pleas from the bar association, the Sixth Circuit, from indeed the Chief Justice of the United States, to vote on confirmations, we have these two well-qualified women from Michigan sitting there, awaiting a hearing, endlessly in limbo, nothing but silence, no explanation as to why their hearings are refused, no objection being noted or stated to their nominations, only two well-qualified women left in limbo and in silence. We can do better. We should do better. I hope we find a way some day to do better. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following letters and editorials.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has now approved an increase in the total number of H-1B nonimmigrant visas made available to skilled foreign workers. I supported that increase because I believe it will help meet this country's growing demand for people with high skills, particularly in fast growing industries such as the high technology industry. However, I want to make clear that I understand this bill to be a short-term fix for the needs of our economy and not a long-term solution. If Congress is going to deal with the workforce needs in this country we can not simply rely on the H-1B program. The national skill shortage problem must be resolved by expanding training programs for American workers and increasing educational opportunities for our young people. Section 10 of this bill provides significant new resources for funding new innovative activities in K-12 math and science across the nation. It also represents a major boost beyond what was provided in the H-1B legislation in 1998. Under the 1998 H-1B bill, the amount of funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) K-12 activities was fairly small--less than $6 million in FY 2000. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Feinstein and Senator Kennedy, this legislation would more than double that amount to $15 million. We can make further progress in our education and training needs by increasing the fee that sponsors pay for H-1B visas. Hopefully, the Conference Committee will increase the fee to $1000 more than tripling the amount made available for job training grants, low income scholarships and NSF enrichment courses--opportunities, which in the long-term, will produce a better trained American workforce. The bill before us today does not increase the fee because the Senate can not originate a revenue measure. However, I supported the bill because of a commitment made by both Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to increase the fee to $1000 when the bill goes to conference with the House. The focus on technology training for teachers addresses a critical need, one that I've fought for in my home state of Michigan. That is why I'm happy to note that we've included language in this bill, which I proposed, with the support of Senator Conrad, specifying that the NSF should make teacher training in the integration of technology into the math and science curriculum a priority in funding projects from resources provided under this legislation. My office will be working with the National Science Foundation as they develop programs to be funded under this legislation so that investments in such professional development will lead the list of funding initiatives. This provision is essential if we are going to realize the full potential of our investment in new technology in the classroom. So few of our school districts have been able to offer state-of-the-art training, or any training at all for that matter, to their teaching staff. Last year, a report by Education Week's National Survey of Teachers' Use of Digital Content revealed some startling findings relative to the lack of teacher training in integrating technology into the curriculum. In a national poll of over 1,400 teachers, 36 percent of teachers responded that they received absolutely no training in integrating technology in the curriculum; another 36 percent said they had only received 1 to 5 hours of such training; 14 percent received 6 to 10 hours of such training; and only 7 percent received between 11-20 hours. This bill is an important step towards addressing this problem, a step that I hope is followed by many others. We are fortunate in my state and across this country to find in the ranks of teachers men and women who are deeply committed to helping America's children learn. I believe we have to match their commitment to our children with our own commitment to helping them acquire the skills they seek to be effective educators in the digital age. I also supported this bill because it guarantees that H-1B visas will be made available to those working at educational institutions, non- profit organizations, and non-profit or governmental research organizations. Currently, these institutions, who recruit scholars and researchers with the highest possible credentials, are forced to compete with for profit companies for the limited number of visas available, and have had difficulties obtaining H-1B visas for their prospective employees. Some of those visa holders are people like Thomas Hofweber, a first- year assistant professor in the Philosophy Department at the University of Michigan, who has conducted research in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology and is believed to be among the most talented young metaphysicians in the world. Another H-1B visa holder at Michigan State University's Department of Agricultural Economics is a researcher and teacher in Agribusiness Management and brings an outstanding background in the economics of horticultural enterprises and the management of their labor forces. It is of great benefit for Michigan students to be able to study with these scholars. I am pleased that universities and research institutions will be able to obtain more needed visas under this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is not even one month into the school year and yet school is canceled for the week at Carter C. Woodson Middle School in New Orleans, Louisiana. On Tuesday afternoon, a 13- year-old boy, who had been expelled from school for fighting, allegedly slipped another 13-year-old a .38-caliber revolver. The expelled teen was seen passing the handgun through the school fence to the other 13- year-old, who allegedly used the gun to shoot a 15-year-old schoolmate. According to witnesses, the 15-year-old then managed to get the gun from his attacker and return gunfire. As a result of this school day skirmish, two teenagers have been hospitalized in critical condition and another teen-ager has been booked on charges of illegally carrying a gun and being a principal to attempted first-degree murder. In addition, the 600 student middle school is in a ``cooling off period,'' meaning classes are canceled for the rest of the week. It is deeply disturbing that teen-agers have such easy access to handguns. The laws in this country make it illegal for a juvenile to possess a handgun or a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a handgun to a juvenile. Yet, with so many loopholes in our firearm distribution laws, it is easy for prohibited users, such as young people, to find illegal access to thousands of guns. Congress can close those loopholes and act to prevent tragedies like the one in New Orleans. With only one week left until the Senate's target adjournment, the time is now. We must pass sensible gun laws and reduce the threat of gun violence in our schools and communities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate nears adjournment I want to pay a special tribute to a special member of the Armed Services Committee's Minority staff. After a long and successful career in both the Executive and Legislative Branch, but mostly here in the United States Senate, Jan Gordon will be leaving our staff on November 30. Speaking not only for myself, but on behalf of the entire Committee and our staff, I can tell you that Jan will be sorely missed. A native North Carolinian, in 1972 Jan Gordon was recruited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to come to Washington, D.C. to work as an executive secretary in their Intelligence Division. While her heart always remained in North Carolina, her feet became firmly planted in Washington. After four years at the FBI, Jan began her Senate career, working first on the staff of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee, and then nine and a half years for the Secretary of the Senate in the Office of National Security Information, which later became what is now the Office of Senate Security. Countless numbers of my colleagues and staff who attended classified briefings or conferences up in S-407 of the Capitol during that period have first hand knowledge of Jan Gordon's superior administrative abilities and organizational skills. In 1987, Chairman Sam Nunn of the Armed Service Committee appointed Jan Gordon as a staff assistant, and she was charged with the very demanding task supporting the staff and work of the Strategic Subcommittee. Not surprisingly, Jan rose to the occasion. She met all of the needs of the Subcommittee, while at the same time she had sole responsibility for the processing and printing of typically 20-25 hearing transcripts per year, many of which were classified. Because her work was so excellent, Jan Gordon was the person Committee's Chief Clerk turned to when new staff assistants needed to be taught ``how to do things the right way.'' When I became Ranking Minority Member of the Committee in 1997 following Senator San Nunn's retirement from the Senate, one of the quickest and easiest decisions I made was to ask Jan to continue working for me and the rest of the Committee's Minority Members and staff. I was delighted that she accepted my offer, because Jan is a valuable and key member of the Minority Staff of the Armed Services Committee. Jan Gordon's service on the staff of the Armed Services Committee has been remarkable. She has an uncompromising work ethic and a strong dedication to duty. Of the over 5,000 days she will have worked for the Armed Services Committee when she retires, she has only had seven sick days. Being late to work, cutting any corner for the sake of moving a project forward, or not being totally cooperative and responsive are foreign and unacceptable concepts to Jan. Her steadfast attention to detail is legendary around the Committee, as is her commitment to meeting the highest standards in everything she does. Jan Gordon has always given completely of herself each and every day of the nearly fourteen years she has served on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. When she departs the Committee staff, all of us will remember her for her professionalism, her enthusiasm, and the consistently high standard she set for herself. We are grateful for her service to the Senate and the Nation, and we wish her many years of health and happiness in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, American consumers should have access to reasonably priced medicines. That seems like such a simple and reasonable statement to make, yet it is a bold one to make in this Congress. Drug prices should be a central part of the debate. I firmly believe we must do two things relative to prescription drugs (1) add a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program and (2) address the high price of drugs. It is the second issue that the bill I am introducing today with Senator Bryan seeks to address. The Prescription Drug Price Anti-Discrimination Act provides that when a prescription drug manufacturer has a policy that discriminates against U.S. wholesalers by charging them more than it charges foreign wholesalers, a 10 percent discriminatory profits tax would be imposed on that manufacturer. This 10 percent discriminatory profits tax will be dedicated to Part A of the Medicare trust fund. This legislation does not attempt to control drug prices. The manufacturer may charge what it chooses to a foreign wholesaler or a U.S. wholesaler. But if the manufacturer does not have a non- discriminatory pricing policy, the discriminatory profits penalty kicks in. It is up to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer reports that it has a policy to charge U.S. wholesalers no more than foreign wholesalers, there is no penalty. That statement would be attached to the company's tax return, and it would be treated like any other representation on a tax return. This bill applies to U.S. manufacturers distributing to foreign wholesalers in Canada and any country that is a member of the European Union. By limiting the bill to Canada and the European countries, we still allow for prescription drug manufacturers to sell AIDS drugs at lower prices to African countries or other countries ravaged by diseases. The bill refers only to other countries whose resources are comparable to ours. Fortune magazine recently reported that pharmaceuticals ranked as the most profitable industry in the country in three benchmarks-return on revenues, return on assets, and return on equity. Yet, Americans are forced to pay extraordinarily high prices for prescription drugs in the U.S. when they can cross the border to Canada to buy those same drugs at far lower prices. This legislation should help bring Americans the prescription drugs that they need at lower prices. I have come to the Senate floor on previous occasions to talk about my own constituents who travel from Michigan to Canada just to purchase lower priced prescription drugs. We found that seven of the prescription drugs most used by Americans cost an average of 89 percent more in Michigan than in Canada. For example, Premarin, an estrogen tablet taken by menopausal women costs $23.24 in Michigan and $10.04 in Ontario. The Michigan price is 131 percent above the Ontario price. Another example, Synthroid, a drug taken to replace a hormone normally produced by the thyroid gland, costs $13.16 in Michigan and $7.96 in Ontario. The Michigan price is 65 percent above the Ontario price. To add insult to injury, these drugs received financial support from the taxpayers of the United States through a tax credit for research and development and in some cases through direct grants from the NIH to the scientists who developed these drugs. In 1996 (the latest year that we have data) through a variety of tax credits, the industry reduced its tax liability by $3.8 billion or 43 percent. Research is very important and we want pharmaceutical companies to engage in robust research and development. But American consumers should not pay the share of research and development that consumers in other countries should be shouldering. Manufacturers of prescription drugs are spending fortunes for advertising. According to the Wall Street Journal, spending on consumer advertising for drugs rose 40 percent in 1999 compared with 1998. In 1999 the drug industry spent nearly $14 billion on promotion, public relations and advertising. Mr. President, I have been sent a letter from Families USA, a noted health care advocacy group, which states that the bill we are introducing today ``will help Medicare beneficiaries buy drugs at lower prices.'' Our citizens should not have to cross the border for cheaper medicines made in the U.S. U.S. consumers are subsidizing other countries when it comes to prescription drug prices. That is simply wrong and this legislation will help to correct this situation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have before the Senate the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I had great concern with the amendment offered last week by Senator Abraham because the amendment sought to define terms which could have resulted in increased domestic diversion of Great Lakes water. This amendment, which was accepted as part of the manager's package until I asked that it be removed, could have led to the opposite of what we need for the Great Lakes. Specially, the amendment as accepted by the managers last week defined bulk fresh water as ``fresh water extracted in amounts intended for transportation outside the United States by commercial vessel or similar form of mass transportation, without further processing.'' This definition could have been interpreted as allowing more diversion of Great Lakes water within the United States. This threat to the Great Lakes was unacceptable and I would have strongly opposed the amendment with that definition. I still have reservations about the amendment because some might try to use it to argue that the current protections against diversions of Great Lakes water provided by existing law are not sufficient. We currently have an effective veto over bulk removals of Great Lakes water outside of the Great Lakes basin. When we passed WRDA in 1986, we acted to make sure that each Great Lakes governor would have a veto over such removals. This protection is legally sufficient and we should do nothing to imply otherwise. If the states formally adopt a conservation strategy and standards, and the governors are currently working on those standards, such standards might provide an additional safeguard to strengthen our position that our current gubernatorial veto policy over bulk removals of Great Lakes water is consistent with the rules of international trade. This conservation strategy and standards might also provide additional protection against removals from the basin. But I favor seeking that additional strength for our position in a way which has no possible implication that it is necessary. While this amendment falls short in this regard, once offered, it would be worse if it were not adopted so I will not object to it.