Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, according to the experts, the number of heroin users is on the rise while the average age of first heroin use is dropping. Heroin addiction is a public health crisis of significant proportion. This legislation, the Hatch-Levin Drug Addiction Act, S. 324, will allow us to effectively utilize a new medical discovery of a substance called Buprenorphine, which has proven to be an extraordinarily effective means for combating heroin addiction by blocking the craving for heroin. But this anti-addiction medication can help us win the war against heroin and heroin addiction only if we change our laws so that the medication can be dispensed in physician's offices instead of a centralized clinic. That is what this legislation accomplishes. It is estimated that there are approximately one million heroin addicts in the U.S. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, many of these heroin addicts want to kick their habit, but do not wish to receive treatment in methadone clinics ``. . . because of the stigma of being in methadone treatment or their concerns about the medical effects of methadone.'' The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has now passed the House of Representatives in slightly different form than we passed in the Senate on November 19. Its adoption again by the Senate as Title XXXV, Section 3501 and Section 3502 of the substitute amendment to H.R. 4365, the Children Health Act of 2000, paves the way for physician office-based dispensing of a medication which has been the subject of extensive successful research and clinical trials in the U.S. and France. This medication, Buprenorphine, was developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between the National Institute on Drug Abuse and a private pharmaceutical manufacturer, and is expected to receive FDA approval in the weeks ahead. Buprenorphine has already been in use, in physician offices, for a number of years in France, where significant success has been achieved in getting individuals off of heroin, reducing crime and heroin-related deaths. For example, since the introduction of Buprenorphine in France, there has been an 80 percent decline in deaths by heroin overdose--from 505 in 1994 to 92 in 1998; user crime and arrests are down by 57 percent--from 17,356 in 1995 to 7,649 in 1998; and trafficking arrests have declined by 40 percent--from 3,329 in 1995 to 1,979 in 1997. Over a year ago, I introduced the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, S. 324, along with Senator Hatch, Senator Moynihan and Senator Biden, in order to put in place the necessary mechanisms to accommodate this revolutionary new treatment that can block the craving for heroin and dramatically restore the quality of the lives of individuals and families who have struggled to get out from under heroin addiction. There are a number of reasons why our legislation is necessary. Under current law, the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, the process by which individual physicians must be approved in order to prescribe narcotics in drug treatment is a cumbersome and complex regulatory process. Federal regulations and State regulations, which could, under existing law, be written to allow Buprenorphine to be utilized in physician offices will take an extensive period of time to be written and take many years to be implemented. Indeed, there is no assurance that such regulations will ever be written by both federal and state governments. In the meantime, a very effective medication is unavailable to those who are addicted to Heroin. The Hatch-Levin legislation would allow for the utilization of Buprenorphine by qualified physicians in a physician's office. It will also assure that Buprenorphine will be made available in every state unless a state expressly opts out of the program through legislation. The current federal regulatory process needed to be utilized before treatment of addiction in an office-based setting is allowed include: (1) Writing the regulations, which could take up to a year or more; (2) Issuance of the proposed rule which would be published in the Federal Register, including the announcement of a period of time for public comment on the proposed rule; (3) A review of the public comments, which could take a year or more; (4) The issuance of the final rule, (5) Then each State is required to affirmatively approve and implement the physician office approach which typically takes 2-4 years, in those states that do act. Based on the experience with the introduction of LAAM for the treatment of heroin addiction--a medication similar to methadone which is effective for up to three days, as opposed to the daily dosage required by methadone--most states may never approve the physician office approach and for those that do the process could go on for as many as 4-5 years. That was the case with California and New York. According to findings reported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on July 14, 1999: ``Current federal and state regulations prevent ease of entry into methadone or LAMM maintenance treatment. . . .'' So, while it is possible under current law for regulations to be written by HHS allowing for the use of Buprenorphine in the treatment of heroin addiction and to allow for it to be prescribed in physician offices, (1) there is no certainty that they will be written; (2) if such regulations are written, it would take years for them to take effect; and (3) each state must explicitly opt into the program by writing regulations or adopting a law. In each state not opting in, the treatment in a physician office would not be available as described The result of the above cumbersome and complex process has been a treatment system consisting primarily of large methadone clinics, preventing physicians from treating patients in convenient office-based settings, thereby making treatment unavailable as a practical matter to many in need of it. Also, experts say that many heroin addicts who want treatment are often deterred because, in addition to the stigma that is associated with large centralized methadone clinics, they must travel long distances daily to receive such treatment and cannot maintain a job while doing so. Even though Buprenorphine does not possess the addictive qualities of methadone, because of the constraints in current law, it would nonetheless have to be dispensed in this same manner--in centralized clinics--rather than in the private office of a qualified physician. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act, S. 324 (H.R. 2634), will make it possible for medications like Buprenorphine, which have little or no likelihood of diversion or abuse, to be made available in the offices of physicians who have the training and certification and license to treat persons addicted to opiates. It is anticipated that the initial group of eligible physicians to dispense Buprenorphine will come from the 10,000 practitioners with addiction treatment certification from the American Society of Addiction Medicine, or board certification in addiction psychiatry or medical toxicology from the American Board of Medical Specialties or certification in addiction medicine from the American Osteopathic Association. The protections in the legislation against abuse are as follows: Physicians may not treat more than 30 patients in an office setting; appropriate counseling and other ancillary services are a requirement under this legislation; the Attorney General may terminate a physician's DEA registration if these conditions are violated; and the program may be discontinued altogether if the Secretary of HHS and Attorney General determine that this new type of decentralized treatment has not proven to be an effective form of treatment. Finally, states may opt out of the provision. Recent findings of the Monitoring the Future Program, headed by Dr. Lloyd Johnson of the University of Michigan, indicates that heroin use among American teens doubled between 1991 and 1998, and represents a clear danger for a significant number of American young people. Dr. Johnson attributes this sharp increase to non-injectable use--smoking and snorting, and notes that the very high purity and low cost of heroin on the street has made these new developments possible; and that, unfortunately, a number of those users will switch over to injection. The Drug Enforcement Administration reports that the price of heroin has steadily declined since 1980, though it is more potent. In 1980, heroin cost $3.90 per milligram and was 3.6 percent pure heroin. Today, heroin costs about $1 per milligram, yet it is 10 times more pure. This purer, cheaper heroin is available everywhere--in our inner cities, in our suburbs and in our small towns. For instance, according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, over 32 percent of persons living in small towns, age of 12 and over, have easy access to heroin. The need for this change in our law to make available more broadly an effective heroin blocker was expressed by experts at a May 9, 1997 Drug Forum on Anti-addiction Research, which I convened along with Senator Moynihan and Senator Bob Kerrey. Forum participants, including distinguished experts such as Dr. Herbert Kleber and Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University, Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University and Dr. James H.Wood of the University of Michigan told us that this dramatic new anti-addiction medication is coming in the nick of time. The untreated population of opiate addicts, and other injection drug users, is the primary means for the spread of HIV, hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis into the general population, not to mention the families of such addicted persons. Failure to block the craving for illicit drugs along with failure to provide traditional treatment will most certainly contribute to the crime related to addiction and continue the spiral of huge health care costs--costs that will largely be borne not by the addicts, not by insurance companies--but by the American taxpayer. The President of the Michigan Public Health Association, Dr. Stephanie Meyers Schim, has spoken out eloquently about the ``great problems'' of substance abuse. In her letter to me in support of our bill she says: ``Substance abuse affects health care costs, mortality, workers' compensation claims, reduced productivity, crime, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, and increased costs associated with extra law enforcement, motor vehicle crashes, crime, and lost productivity.'' Dr. Schim goes on to say, ``Buprenorphine will allow drug addicted individuals to maximize everyday life activities, and participate more fully in work day and family activities while seeking the needed treatment and counseling to become drug free''. Dr. James H. Wood, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Michigan Medical School recently wrote: ``One of the most important aspects of your bill is the use of Buprenorphine by well-trained physicians to treat narcotic addiction from their offices, which has the potential to attract and treat effectively sizable populations of currently untreated addicts. A major byproduct of this increased treatment, of course, will be reduction in the demand for illicit narcotics in the U.S.'' Dr. Thomas Kosten, President of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry echoed these sentiments in recent testimony on The Drug Addiction Treatment Act before the House Commerce Committee on Health and Environment, and I quote: ``. . . I would like to support the availability of Buprenorphine for office based practice. Addiction is a brain disease and office-based practice is primarily needed for effective treatment of Buprenorphine.'' The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence which is the nation's longest standing organization of scientists addressing drug dependence and drug abuse, have stated that the availability of Buprenorphine in physicians' offices adds a needed expansion of current treatment for heroin addiction. ASAM also cautioned that Buprenorphine will lose much of its utility if it is tied to the very heavily regulated structure for current treatments of heroin addiction. There are other compelling reasons why we must expedite the delivery of anti-addiction medications. Of the juveniles who land behind bars in state institutions, more than 60 percent of them reported using drugs once a week or more, and over 40 percent reported being under the influence of drugs while committing crimes, according to a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drug-related incarcerations are up and we are building more jails and prisons to accommodate them--more than 1000 have been built over the past 20 years. According to the July 14, 1999 Office of National Drug Control Policy Update, ``Drug-related arrests are up from 1.1 million arrests in 1988 to 1.6 million arrests in 1997--steady increases every year since 1991''. In crafting the provisions of this legislation, we consulted with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Federal Drug Administration, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Of critical importance is the fact that Buprenorphine is not addictive like methadone so the likelihood of diversion is small. Nothing in our bill is intended to change the rules pertaining to methadone clinics or other facilities or practitioners that conduct drug treatment services with addictive substances. I received a very supportive letter from HHS Secretary Donna Shalala in which she reports on the safety and utility of Buprenorphine, as follows: I am especially encouraged by the results of published clinical studies of Buprenorphine. Buprenorphine is a partial mu opiate receptor agonist, in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act, with unique properties which differentiate it from full agonists such as methadone or LAAM. The pharmacology of the combination tablet consisting of Buprenorphine and naloxone results in. . . .low value and low desirability for diversion on the street. Published clinical studies suggest that it has very limited euphorigenic affects, and has the ability to percipitate withdrawal in individuals who are highly dependent upon other opioids. Thus, Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine/naloxone products are expected to have low diversion potential. Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine/naloxone products are expected to reach new groups of opiate addicts--for example, those who do not have access to methadone programs, those who are reluctant to enter methadone treatment programs, and those who are unsuited to them {this would include for example, those in their first year of opiates addiction or those addicted to lower doses of opiates . Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine/naloxone products should increase the amount of treatment capacity available and expand the range of treatment options that can be used by physicians. Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine/Naloxone would not replace methadone. Methadone and LAAM clinics would remain an important part of the treatment continuum. In closing, I would like to include excerpts from the statement which was presented by Dr. Charles O'Brien before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, May 9, 2000. Dr. O'Brien is Professor and Vice Chair of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Director of the Behavioral Health, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Center for Studies of Addiction, Upenn/VAMC, and Research Director, Philadelphia VA. Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center. Dr. O'Brien's remarks are as follows: While our first goal in the treatment of heroin addiction is complete abstinence, we know that this is not realistic for a great majority of patients. Even those who do well initially in a drug free residential program have a high frequency of relapse when they return to the neighborhood where drugs are available. Another new medication that is being successfully used in France and is currently being reviewed by the FDA for use in the U.S. is buprenorphine. Its chemical category is somewhat different from methadone in that it is a partial agonist at opiate receptors. This medication has been found to be as effective as methadone and in some cases even better. It seems to be particularly effective for adolescents with a heroin problem. Buprenorphine is very unlikely to produce overdose and in France, the death rate due to opiate overdose has dropped by about 75 percent. Not only does it not produce overdose itself, but it may even provide a measure of protection against overdose by heroin. The safety and efficacy of buprenorphine is such that it should be made available to all physicians to treat patients with opiate problems in their offices. This would be a major benefit to patients who are unable and unwilling to come to specialized methadone programs. It would be available not just to heroin addicts, but to anyone with an opiate problem, including many citizens who would not ordinarily be associated with the term addiction. The availability of buprenorphine would enable physicians to control the opiate abuse problems of many Americans who are now being inadequately treated or not treated at all. One important development is the combination of buprenorphine with naloxone, a full antagonist. If the combination is taken by mouth, this new medication is effective in reducing drug craving and stabilizing the person to lead a normal life. If someone tries to abuse it by injecting it, the naloxone component would then be effective in blocking the effects and preventing a ``high'' or euphoria. Thus, the diversion potential of this new medication should be minimized. Several treatment programs have already studied buprenorphine in the treatment of adolescent heroin abusers. It has been found to detoxify, that is treat withdrawal symptoms, while the body cleanses itself of heroin, more effectively than other medications. Thus a greater proportion of young people are able to get off of heroin and receive counseling and other forms of rehabilitation. Buprenorphine is also very effective as a longer term medication that a young person can take daily, return to school or job training and after six months or more maintain a stable drug free state. Once this medication is approved by the FDA and is allowed to be used in physicians' offices, it could dramatically improve the treatment of heroin addiction in the

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which provides fair relief to schools in Michigan and other states. In 1993, the state of Michigan and our school districts worked out an agreement which would provide schools a portion of Federal Medicaid dollars based on school based health related activities that were being provided to eligible children receiving special education services. When these school superintendents looked around in 1996, they saw a similarly situated state which was providing administrative services to help special needs kids, and they decided to follow suit for children in Michigan. Michigan then implemented the Administrative Outreach component of school based services based on a program that had been in operation in that state for the previous two years. Recently, HCFA disallowed $103.6 million in claims submitted by the state of Michigan to reimburse the schools for services already rendered in this effort. It is simply unfair that these school districts are now being penalized when they have been trying to provide health services through the schools for special needs kids in ways used in other states and after relying on HCFA regional guidance. I have met with a large group of Michigan school superintendents and their staff and I know how committed they are to helping children with special needs. Apparently, the rules need to be clarified, and in a meeting with HCFA that the Michigan superintendents had this week, HCFA committed to sitting down with the education community by the end of this month to finalize an administrative guide regarding claims for reimbursement. That is surely an appropriate goal, but in the meantime, Michigan claims have been disallowed although the state relied on regional HCFA guidance. While national guidance is being clarified, we should not penalize states who have acted reasonably based on existing guidance. I believe Michigan school superintendents when they say they believed they were acting appropriately in providing services for children with special educational needs. These are honest hardworking people trying to run school districts on tight budgets. I am introducing this legislation because I believe any attempt to penalize schools who acted in good faith will ultimately hurt special needs kids as well as our schools themselves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. I will be in touch with Senator Abraham in the hopes and belief, too, we will be able to work something out on it. I thank my friend.

Mr. LEVIN. I understand that there is a managers' package of amendments which have been cleared, and that one of those amendments was that of my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham. I had some concerns about that, which I have not had a chance yet to share with Senator Abraham. I think I will be able to work this out with him, but I have not yet had the opportunity. I understand now that amendment would be withheld from the managers' package until we can get back with the managers about that subject. So if there is a managers' package that is offered tonight, it would not include that amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the last several months, many of us here in the Senate have been urging our colleagues to pass sensible gun laws. Each year, more than 30,000 Americans are killed by gunfire (an average of 10 children and adolescents and 74 adult Americans each day) and until we act, thousands more will be lost to gun violence. Those of us who are committed to this issue have pledged to read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. September 21, 1999: Colden Hurt, 28, Baltimore, MD; Troy Jones, 32, Washington, DC; Billy Peaks, 23, Chicago, IL; Roland Shepard, 56, Philadelphia, PA; Charles Walker, 17, St. Louis, MO; Omar Williams, 24, Memphis, TN; Jessie Williamson, 42, Memphis, TN. We cannot allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a painful reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation today.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a concurrent resolution along with Representative Bart Stupak which recognizes the Native American men and women who have served in the United States military. This resolution recognizes the contributions of Native Americans in the United States Military service which are indeed impressive. Native Americans have served in the United States military since the American Revolution. During the Civil War, there were 3 Confederate units and 1 Union unit primarily made up of Native Americans from the Oklahoma tribes. Many Native Americans fought in the Spanish American War. In fact, one warrior from Michigan, Jonas Shawandase, fought bravely with Teddy Roosevelt on San Juan Hill. In World War I, many Native Americans were so eager to join that they went to Canada to enlist before the United States entered the war. 6,000 of the more than 8,000 who served during this war were volunteers. This tremendous act of patriotism persuaded Congress to pass the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. During World War II, 25,000 Native American men and women fought on all fronts in Europe and Asia, receiving more than 71 Air Medals, 51 Silver Stars, 47 Bronze Stars, 34 Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Congressional Medals of Honor. In fact Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian, was one of the men to raise the flag on Iwo Jima. In the Vietnam War more than 41,500 Native Americans served in the United States Armed Forces. Of those, 90% were volunteers, giving Native Americans the highest record of service of any ethnic group in the country. In 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, some 24,000 Native American men and women were in the military. Approximately 3,000 served in the Persian Gulf. One of every four Native American males is a military veteran. Native Americans in Michigan have told me that veterans are greatly respected in Native American societies and this honor is nowhere more apparent than at powwows. At a powwow celebration, the veterans are given the honor of carrying the flag and are the first to enter the powwow circle. This resolution recognizes those Native Americans who with dignity served in the U.S. military. We note today their service to this country and honor Native Americans for their military contributions.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are weighty arguments that can be made on both sides of the question regarding whether or not to grant permanent normal trade relations status, PNTR, to China. But in the end there are two compelling arguments for granting PNTR that, I believe outweigh the arguments against it. The first is that our current trade relationship with China is unacceptable and the second is that the existing annual review of our trade relationship has failed to improve either that relationship or the human rights situation in China. Granting China PNTR will result in concrete improvements in our trade relationship and offers the promise of a significantly more effective tool for both monitoring and changing the human rights conditions in that country. When I say that our trade relationship with China is unacceptable, I am referring to the $69 billion trade deficit with China we ran up last year ($82 billion in imports versus $13 billion in exports). And as bad as that deficit is, economists are predicting it will grow. These levels are totally unacceptable. Today, access to China's highly regulated and protected market is extremely difficult. China protects its domestic market with high tariffs and non-tariff barriers that limit access of foreign companies. There is also inadequate protection of intellectual property and trade-distorting government subsidies. There are clearly some advantages to this agreement in terms of gaining greater access to Chinese markets. China's current trade barriers, for instance, are especially high in the automotive sector. Concessions made by China in the agreement with the United States to open up their automotive sector to our exports are significant, including tariff reductions. Before the agreement, China's auto tariffs average 80-100 percent. China agreed to lower that to 25 percent by 2006. Before the agreement China's tariff on auto parts averages 20-35 percent. That is reduced to 10 percent by 2006 under the agreement. There are significant tariff reductions in other areas than the auto sector. Before the agreement, China's agricultural equipment tariffs average about 11\1/2\ percent. China will reduce them to 5.7 percent by 2002. Before the agreement the Chinese tariff on apples, cherries and pears is 70 percent. After the agreement, China will reduce that to 10 percent, by 2004. China's tariff on chemicals averages 14.75 percent now, and in the agreement China has agreed to reduce it to 6.9 percent by 2006. It also agreed to reduce its tariff on filing cabinets from 18 to 10.5 percent by 2003. Chinese tariffs on refrigerators would come down from 25 percent to 20 percent by 2002. American farmers and exporters have told me they believe they can export to and compete in China with these lower tariffs. China has also agreed to phase out its restrictive import licensing requirements and import quotas for vehicles. China agreed to phase out all restrictions on distribution services, such as auto maintenance and repair industries, giving U.S. companies the right to control distribution of their products, which is currently prohibited. In its agreement with the European Union, which will apply to all WTO members once China joins the WTO, China agreed to let foreign auto manufacturers, not the Chinese government, as is currently the case, decide what vehicles they wish to produce for the Chinese market. Also, as a member of the WTO, China would be required to drop its local content restrictions. Such changes are significant and long overdue. If the status quo in our trade with China is unacceptable, so too is our mechanism for impacting the human rights climate in that country. I know that some have argued that Congress should not grant China PNTR status because they are reluctant to abandon our annual human rights review process and thus reduce our leverage with China on human rights practices. But what real leverage has this annual review and certification process given us when the United States has granted China normal trade relations status every year for 21 years without interruption? Even in 1989, after Tiananmen Square, China's normal trade relations, NTR, status was renewed. If we can certify China even after Tiananmen Square, what is this annual review pressure really worth? The human rights situation in China is miserable. That's the current situation, the status quo before the agreement we are considering. Describing the violations of human rights in China now doesn't answer the question of whether we should grant China PNTR any more than whether we should have granted PNTR to Saudi Arabia or other countries where human rights are violated. In other words, the current situation before this agreement is bad regarding human rights as is true with many other countries with whom we have PNTR. I don't see how we are worse off with this agreement in terms of getting China to improve their human rights. In fact, the PNTR bill we are voting on includes a specific mechanism to monitor and report on China's human rights practices that was proposed by my brother, Congressman Sander Levin. Through the establishment of a congressional-executive commission on human rights, labor market issues and the establishment of the rule of law in China we will be keeping some public, visible and ongoing pressure on China to reform in these areas. Even the president of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, who was critical of the House vote approving PNTR acknowledged that my brother's provisions, . . . marked an historic turning point: a trade bill cannot be passed in Congress anymore unless it addresses human rights and workers' rights. In addition to the improved human rights enforcement we gain under PNTR, I believe it is at least possible the opening of Chinese markets to our products and involving them more and more in the world economy will produce human rights results which the current approach hasn't produced. There may be some truth in the argument that the year-to-year certification creates some uncertainty for American businesses thinking of investing in China if they export some of their Chinese production back here despite their stated intention not to. This uncertainty, it is argued, results in lower levels of US investment in China, and lower levels of job transfers which sometimes accompanies that investment, than would be the case without the tariff uncertainty created by the annual review. However, it's unrealistic to expect that investments will not be made in China by companies from other countries even if not made by our companies. European and Asian companies will presumably fill any gap. And they could just as easily export their Chinese-made products to the United States, in which case more US jobs would probably be displaced as a result of those imports than would be displaced if American companies were the investors. Let's assume you have an American and a German refrigerator manufacturer vying to make refrigerators in China. If both companies were going to ship refrigerators back to the United States, the jobs of people making refrigerators in the United States would seemingly be at least as much jeopardized by the German made-in-China refrigerator as the American made-in-China refrigerator. Actually, the job displacement would probably be less with the American made-in-China refrigerators being sold back here because the American company is more likely to use some US made components, stimulating at least some US exports. And not only will European and Asian businesses probably be less likely to use American made components in items they assemble in China, they will probably have fewer US stockholders gaining from their investments in China than would be the case with an American company's investment. For instance, even though General Motors started production of the Buick Regal two years ago in Shanghai, no GM vehicles have come back to the US and $250 million a year worth of American made auto parts were used in that production. As a result of General Motors and other US vehicle manufacturers' investment in China, in 1999 Chinese imports of US automotive parts grew by 90 percent over the prior year. Percentagewise, China's imports of US automotive parts are increasing faster than China's exports of automotive parts to the United States. We are seemingly better off with some US content in Chinese-made products than with none. It's clear to me that the status quo is failing to improve human rights conditions in China and failing to improve our trade relationship with that country. Given that I believe our trade relationship with China is intolerable and China's human rights climate is miserable, I do not vote for PNTR to reward China. Far from it. I have no desire to reward China for creating unfair barriers to American products and maintaining tariffs on our exports while Chinese imports flood our marketplace. Nor do I want to reward China for its failure to comply with earlier trade agreements. And I have no desire to reward China for persecuting those who only seek to practice their religious beliefs or to secure their rights as workers. But in the end PNTR is not a reward to China, it is a tool our country should use and use aggressively to open China's markets to our goods the way our market has been open to China's goods and to exert meaningful pressure on China to join that community of nations that respects basic human rights. My vote for PNTR is a vote against a status quo that has failed to advance either of those goals. It is a vote for a measure, however imperfect, that can move us closer to a fair trading relationship with China and to a day when the people of that country can enjoy their fundamental human rights.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, as Ukraine approaches its first decade of independence, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are many accomplishments which the people of Ukraine can be proud. For over a millennium, the Ukrainian people have successfully preserved and maintained their unique culture, language, religion and identity. Such an achievement stands as an inspiration for free people everywhere, and is a testimony to the depth, character and vibrancy of the Ukrainian culture. The November 14, 1999, re-election of Leonid Kuchna as Ukraine's President is a cause for great optimism. High turnout in this election, and a refusal by the voters to return to a Communist past, speaks to the vibrancy of Ukranian democracy. With this election, the Ukranian people chose to move forward with a program of economic reform. While the transition from a centralized economy to a free-market system has not been easy, Ukraine has been blessed with vast natural resources, a sizeable industrial infrastructure and a hard-working and resourceful people that promise to ensure Ukraine's economic transformation. The decision, this year, by the Supreme Rada to privatize large parts of the Ukrainian economy will further enable this industrious nation to continue with its economic progress. Ukraine's unique geographical location has given it a vital role in ensuring the peace and stability of not only the region, but of all Europe. Ukraine has shown its commitment to a secure Europe by providing troops to the peacekeeping effort in Kosovo, and by seeking to enhance its partnership with NATO. By entering into the Status of Forces Agreement with NATO, and hosting NATO military exercises in Odessa, Ukraine has reiterated its commitment to the world's most powerful military alliance. At this time when we honor Ukraine's independence, it is only fitting that we laud the many advances made by the Ukrainian people in the past decade. The advances Ukraine has made today are built upon the sacrifices and dedication of countless patriots who have struggled to preserve the independence and freedom of the Ukranian people. I am sure that my Senate colleagues would join me in saluting the Ukranian people for their tremendous courage in promoting free and fair markets and participatory democracy during a difficult transition period.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a new study conducted by researchers at Hamilton College reveals that students across the country are strongly in favor of sensible gun laws. According to the report, approximately ninety percent of high school students surveyed support proposals such as the registration of handguns and licensing of handgun owners, criminal background checks for prospective gun purchasers, and five-day ``cooling off periods.'' In addition, eighty to ninety percent of the teens surveyed in the poll support laws that would require all guns to be sold with trigger locks, require all gun buyers to pass a safety course, and hold adults criminally responsible for keeping a loaded firearm where it could be reasonably accessed by a child and that child harms himself or others. Here are some of the other findings from the report: ``High school students back handgun regulation at higher levels than respondents in recent adult surveys; High school students believe that the Constitution protects the right of citizens to own guns. But they reject the idea that government regulation of the sale and use of handguns violates this right; Almost half of high school students say it would be easy for a teenager to obtain a handgun in their neighborhood. A third report that they know of someone at their school who has been threatened with a gun or shot at.'' The Hamilton College researchers were the first to nationally survey high school students about their feelings toward gun issues. I am not surprised that the results show overwhelming support for the gun safety proposals that many of us in Congress have been trying to enact into law. Students are well-versed on the dangers of guns in their homes and schools. In this survey, more than twenty-five percent of students reported that they or someone close to them has been ``shot by a gun.'' Mr. President, with just a few weeks remaining until the Senate's target adjournment date, it's long past time to act. Let's listen to our young people and enact the sensible gun laws they want and need to keep American schools safer from gun violence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Smith amendment would require the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China to monitor the actions of the Government of the People's Republic of China with respect to the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners. I believe the allegations that Chinese officials harvest organs from executed prisoners are extremely serious. However, the Congressional Executive Commission already has jurisdiction to look at this practice because it is a human rights violation and the Commission has jurisdiction to monitor and report on human rights violations in the PRC. This very serious allegation should not be singled out among all the human rights abuses of the Chinese government when it is already covered as part of what the Commission can monitor and report on. Vote On Amendment No. 4131

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, all over America, young people are back in schools. A record 53 million students are in our classrooms and teachers across the country are gearing up to prepare them for the new millennium. In many ways, teachers are doing what they always have at the start of a new school year--they are learning names, starting curriculums, passing out text books and coaching athletic teams. There is nothing highly unusual about recent new school years except that teachers are more concerned for their safety than they were in the past. Over the last few years, the number of high profile school shootings--in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Littleton, Colorado, and Mt. Morris Township, Michigan--have changed Americans' perception of safety in school. On the last day of school in Lake Worth, Florida, a 13 year old boy allegedly shot and killed his language arts teacher with a .25- caliber handgun he brought to school. Teachers in this country fear what may happen to them in the classroom and for good reason. Listen to this middle school teacher in Michigan, who participated in a study conducted by Dr. Ron Astor, an assistant professor of social work and education at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The teacher said: ``A lot of us are afraid. You come in the morning and you're just afraid to even go to work. You're just so stressed out, because you're all tensed up, you can't feel happy and teach like you want to because you've got to spend all of your time trying to discipline. You're scared somebody's going to walk in. We keep our doors locked. We have to keep our doors locked.'' Middle school teacher. (Meyer, Astor & Behre, 2000). Teachers, students, and staff are fearful of the presence of firearms in school and those of us who feel strongly about education and school safety feel we must do something to ease their fears. During the last few years, we have continually tried to close the loopholes in our laws that give young people access to firearms. In May of 1999, the Senate passed the juvenile justice bill with common sense amendments that would have strengthened our gun laws. After the House passed its version of the bill, the legislation went to a conference committee where Senators and Representatives were supposed to work out the differences between their two versions of the bill. Unfortunately, that conference committee has met only once and that was more than a year ago. In the United States, another ten young people are killed by firearms each day. Congress must pass sensible gun laws and help keep our schools safe.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, we would like to bring to the attention of the distinguished chairman and ranking member the critical problem which the Great Lakes region faces in dealing with a legacy of sediment contamination. In 1987, the International Joint Commission designated 43 Areas of Concern on the Great Lakes where human use of the aquatic resources is severely impaired. Of the 31 U.S. sites, none have been cleaned up to the point of de-listing in the 13 years which have passed since listing. In most cases, the remaining recalcitrant problem is sediments which are contaminated with persistent toxic substances.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in each of fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999 the Congress was able to provide $500,000 for this project--funds which were spent to begin construction of models for six priority tributaries. Models of the Nemadji River, and Saginaw River have been completed, but lack of funding in fiscal 2000 has delayed completion of models of the Maumee River, Menominee River, Buffalo River, and Grand Calumet River. Plans to begin development of additional models for priority tributaries in Mill & Cascade Creeks, PA and Grand River, MI have also been delayed. With the first models just finishing completion, we are already seeing the benefits of the program. In the case of the Nemadji River model, the county government is starting to use the model to explore potential effects of changes to forestry practices in the Nemadji River watershed to reduce bank erosion and soil loss to Lake Superior. Preliminary analysis carried out on the Maumee model indicate that soil conservation can reduce future dredging and disposal costs. We note that the House Committee has provided $500,000 in fiscal 2001 funding for the modeling program and ask the distinguished ranking member to make funding for this program a high priority in conference with the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my shock at the recent statement of independent counsel Robert Ray in last week's New York Times that he will shortly be releasing findings and conclusions in the Whitewater matter. Only the special court has the authority to release the final report of an independent counsel or any portion of a final report, and the only authority the law gives an independent counsel is to prepare a final report and file it with the special court. Mr. Ray has no legal authority to unilaterally release results of his investigation, and if he does so, he is defying the law. Section 594 of the independent counsel law lists the authority and duties of an independent counsel. And, although this law has expired with respect to the appointment of new independent counsels, it is still the applicable law with respect to already existing independent counsels like Mr. Ray. And here's what the law says with respect to reports by independent counsels. (h)(1) An independent counsel shall-- (A) [file 6 month expense reports with the special court] and (B) before the termination of the independent counsel's office under section 596(b), file a final report with the division of the court, setting forth fully and completely a description of the work of the independent counsel, including the disposition of all cases brought. That section of the law then goes on to prescribe the process for disclosing information in the final report, and here's what it says: (h)(2) The division of the court may release to the Congress, the public, or any appropriate person, such portions of a report made under this subsection as the division of the court considers appropriate. The division of the court shall make such orders as are appropriate to protect the rights of any individual named in such report and to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution. The division of the court may make any portion of a final report filed under paragraph (1)(B) available to any individual named in such report for the purposes of receiving within a time limit set by the division of the court any comments or factual information that such individual may submit. Such comments and factual information, in whole or in part, may, in the discretion of the division of the court, be included as an appendix to such final report. As anyone can see from the plain language of the statute, we placed the full responsibility for disclosure of the final report --or any portion of a final report--exclusively in the hands of the special court. We did this, in significant part, out of the concerns we had that individuals named in the report be given an opportunity, out of a sense of fairness, to provide their comments to the public at the time the report is released. That's why we gave the special court the authority to make ``any portion of the final report . . . available to any individual named in'' the report prior to any release to the public -- so such individual could file comments or factual information for the court to consider in deciding whether to make such report or portion of the report public and if so, to append such comments or factual information to the report for distribution. Any public release of findings and conclusions would deny individuals named in the report the opportunity to comment on the report prior to release as expressly intended by Congress. Mr. Ray's statement that he intends to release findings and conclusions of his investigation into the Whitewater matter when he sends his final report to the special court is contrary to the requirements of the law. Mr. Ray should reverse his stated course and comply with the law. I have written to Mr. Ray to urge him to withhold releasing findings and conclusions about the Whitewater matter until permitted to do so by the special court. I have also notified the Attorney General of my concerns and urged her, as the only one with supervisory authority over independent counsels, to take the appropriate action to keep Mr. Ray's conduct within the parameters of the independent counsel law. And finally, I have written to the special court to bring this to the court's attention and to urge the special court to enforce the law and their exclusive prerogative under the law to control any public release of the independent counsel's findings and conclusions. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article of August 29, 2000, appear in the Record immediately following my remarks as well as copies of my letters to the Attorney General, the special court and Mr. Ray.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. the rouge river in southfield michigan

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. national synchrotron light source

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Is it correct that the Committee has provided $6,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to States program and that only $200,000 of this funding is currently obligated to a specific project?

Mr. LEVIN. As always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would also ask if the Senator would be willing to consider in conference a request of $40,000 for the Rouge River in Southfield, Michigan. A large slope area on the banks of the Rouge River has collapsed and is currently threatening public infrastructure. This area must be stabilized and restored before winter sets in to prevent damage to the sanitary sewer and to eliminate the threat of pollution to the Rouge River. This is a very urgent project.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Is it correct that the Committee has included $8,000,000 for section 14, Emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development, I wonder if the Senator from Nevada would answer a question about funding for a serious problem with Houghton Lake in Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Nevada would answer a question regarding Emergency streambank and shoreline protection--sec. 14--funds?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development. I thank the Committee for including an $100,000 appropriation for the Clinton River Spillway for an evaluation to determine whether the Clinton River Spillway in Michigan has a design deficiency requiring remediation. During the 1950's, the United States Army Corps of Engineers constructed a dam on the Clinton River and a spillway to alleviate flooding. Since the completion of the project, debris has built up at the confluence of the Clinton River and spillway. I agree with the Committee that a study must be conducted, however I ask that the study include an analysis of the cause of the debris build up as well as a determination as to whether or not there is a design deficiency. This is a continuing problem in this river basin and the Corps needs to examine the cause of the problem in order to devise a long term solution.

Mr. LEVIN. I would ask if the Senator would be willing to consider in conference a request of $75,000 to conduct a comprehensive water management study for Houghton Lake, MI. The Eurasian milfoil is a non- indigenous water plant that floats on the water's surface and forms large mats of plants, which lower the oxygen levels in the water below them, killing fish and making passage by boat very difficult. A large amount of the lake's surface has been infested by the milfoil.