Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The amendments will have to be on file no later than adjournment tomorrow for the recess. Second-degree amendments that are relevant would be in order even if they are not filed. This is just preliminary. Since the Senator from Virginia asked, I offer this at least as a suggestion preliminarily. This is what we are talking about.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is just simply wrong that Americans are forced to pay extraordinarily high prices for prescription drugs and then have to cross the border to Canada and Mexico to buy those drugs manufactured in the United States at far lower prices. It is simply wrong. But it is doubly wrong when the U.S. taxpayers have paid for part of the research that produced those very same prescription drugs. Many of us have constituents who go to Canada just for this purpose; they are unable to afford prescription drugs here in the United States. Sometimes they go great distances to cross the border to Canada or to Mexico in order to buy prescription drugs at prices they can afford. We did a survey of a number of prescription drugs. These are seven of the most popular prescription drugs. We took a look at those seven drugs and then did a survey of the cost of those prescription drugs in Michigan and in Ontario across the border. Premarin, $23.24 in Michigan, $10.04 in Ontario; Synthroid, $13 compared to $8; Prozac, $82 compared to $43; Prilosec, $111 compared to $48; Zithromax, $48 compared to $28; Lipitor, $63 compared to $42; Norvasc, $76 compared to $41. When particularly seniors--sometimes by the busload--gather together, drive to a border point, and cross the border to get a 30- or 60-day supply of prescriptions, and then come back into Michigan or other States with prescription drugs that they cannot afford to buy in their own hometown, something is fundamentally wrong with that system. These are the percentages of those top seven drugs. The U.S. prices are above the Canadian prices based on that survey. That was a survey of prices in Detroit compared to Ontario across the border. For the first one, Premarin, the U.S. price is 131 percent higher than the Canadian price; Synthroid is 63 percent higher than for Ontario purchasers; Prozac is 878 percent higher for Americans than for Canadians; Prilosec is 132 percent higher; for Zithromax, Americans are paying 674 percent more than Canadians; Lipitor is 51 percent more than for Canadians; and Norvasc is 783 percent more than for Canadians. That is unconscionable. It is wrong. It is infuriating. It is costly. We have to do something to change the system that allows this to happen. But it is doubly wrong when U.S. taxpayers have paid for part of the research that produced those very same prescription drugs. I don't know which of these particular prescription drugs were produced with U.S. taxpayer dollars or partly with U.S. taxpayer dollars. I don't have that data. But that is not the point of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. For the drugs produced with U.S. taxpayer dollars, there should be an agreement that the manufacturer will charge a fair price as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. That is a very reasonable approach, it seems to me. There are other approaches which have been suggested to address this issue. I think there are other approaches also worthy of consideration. But the approach before us today is an approach which I believe is eminently fair, which simply says if you want to use taxpayer dollars in your research, that you make sure your pricing system is fair to Americans who helped to fund that very research. I hope we will adopt the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. I think it is a fair approach. It is based on the contribution Americans have made to the creation of the very prescription drugs which too many Americans find they cannot afford. We want pharmaceutical companies to be profitable. We want pharmaceutical companies to engage in robust research and development. But we do not and should not, as Americans, pay the share of research and development that consumers in other countries should be shouldering. We can't afford to subsidize other countries, and it is particularly wrong where we have originally done some of the subsidy of the very research and development which produced the drug which is now sold for so much less in those other countries. I commend the Senator from Minnesota. I support his amendment. I hope we will adopt it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) released a new report about the illegal firearms market. The ATF's report documents 1,530 criminal investigations involving firearms traffickers for the time period between July 1996 and December 1998. These trafficking investigations led to the recovery of more than 84,000 illegal firearms and the prosecution of more than 1,700 defendants. The ATF report provides significant insight in to the gun trafficking trade. The investigation reveals that too many loopholes in our national framework for firearms distribution permits traffickers to divert legal guns to the illegal marketplace. The vulnerabilities in our law, identified by the ATF, are a result of corrupt federal firearms licensees, who were associated with only 10 percent of the investigations in the report but accounted for nearly half of the firearms involved, a staggering 40,000 guns; gun shows, which supplied channels for 26,000 guns, the second highest number of illegally trafficked firearms in the investigation; straw purchasers, who bought and transferred firearms to unlicensed sellers or prohibited users; unlicensed sellers, who were not required to conduct Brady background checks or maintain records of their sales; and firearms theft. Mr. President, we can no longer afford to ignore the deficiencies in our federal firearm laws. Gun trafficking gives criminal users and young people access to tens of thousands of illegal guns. If Congress wants to reduce firearm trafficking, then first and foremost, we must close the gun show loophole. Secretary Lawrence Summers, who oversees the ATF explained ``This report . . . shows that we must do more to close every trafficking channel, starting with closing the gun show loophole . . .'' Furthermore, we must increase criminal penalties for traffickers and crack down on corrupt federal firearms licensees, straw purchasers, and unlicensed sellers. I urge Congress to pay attention to this report and pass sensible gun measures that will end the deadly flow of firearms to the illegal marketplace. I request an article be printed in the Record entitled ``The Biography of a Gun,'' which explains how a single gun makes the transition from legal to illegal commerce.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend the real leaders in this effort, Senators McCain and Feingold. They have been extraordinary in their tenacity. We look forward to their continuing tenacity to close two egregious loopholes--the one we are closing through this bill, and the other one is the soft money loophole. I thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership in terms of the 527 loophole itself. We are about to take a step on a long journey. It is a journey to bring back some limits on campaign contributions. Those limits have been destroyed by two loopholes: The soft money loophole and the so-called 527 loophole. We are about to shed some light, pour some sunshine on the 527 loophole. And the public will respond, I believe, when they see just how egregious this loophole is. When the disclosure required by this bill becomes law--as it will--the public will respond to the unlimited contributions which are also hidden. That disclosure, I believe, will lead to the closure of this loophole. And for that, we commend the leaders in this effort. It is an ongoing struggle. It can only be said to be successful when the soft money loophole is closed, and when the 527 loophole is not just brought out into the sunshine but, hopefully, when it shrivels away and is closed because the public wants the restoration of limits on campaign contributions. They want them disclosed, but they want them limited. We have taken the important step of disclosure relative to one of those loopholes, and for that we have to thank Senators McCain, Feingold, and Lieberman. I very much express the gratitude of a bipartisan coalition to all of them.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I agree with our whip. It is our intention to, No. 1, limit amendments to relevant amendments, if we can, and, No. 2, begin to work through those amendments and eliminate as many as possible that do not need to be offered, modifying some, agreeing to some, and, if necessary, obviously voting on some. We will be working very hard with our good friend, the chairman of our committee, to proceed through the bill as soon as it is before the Senate, and the moment it is, we think we can make some real progress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced today by my friend from Wisconsin to address a problem that is unique to certain areas of Wisconsin and Michigan. In the Cities of Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, Michigan and in several Wisconsin communities, certain individual Citizens Band (CB) radio operators are using illegal equipment of a capacity which interferes with the home electronic equipment and telephone service of their neighbors. As a result, these neighbors are forced to buy filters in order to screen out the interference, and in some cases the interference is so extreme that the filters don't even work. There have also been complaints that some of these ``illegal'' CB broadcasters are using profanity which is disturbing to the neighbors and interfering with legitimate use of CB radios by truckers and others. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of Federal resources to stop the problem. In recent years, due to budget and staffing cuts, the FCC has decreased its enforcement efforts. The legislation being introduced today would authorize local jurisdictions to enforce the FCC regulations regarding use of citizens band radio equipment, while maintaining the FCC jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. The bill provides for an FCC appeal process available to any person who believes they are adversely affected by local enforcement action. FCC does not object to this approach or to this legislation. Mr. President, this legislation offers a simple solution to the inability of the FCC, due to insufficient resources, to put a stop to illegal CB equipment use in parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. The legislation would allow local officials, who are more familiar with the specific problems and complaints in their areas of jurisdiction, to be authorized to enforce FCC regulations regarding the use of CB radio equipment. The legislation has the strong support of local government officials in the Michigan communities where CB interference occurs. An identical bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. I hope this legislation will be enacted in an expedited manner so that local officials will have the ability to stop the use of illegal CB equipment that is interfering with legitimate CB use and disturbing citizens of the impacted communities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when six-year old Kayla Rolland, from Mt. Morris Township, Michigan, was shot by a fellow classmate, it moved most Americans to tears. Months later, the tears dried and the images faded from view for some, while others turned those tears into action. Of course, the most active group has been the Million Moms, who marched in my home state of Michigan and around the country to demonstrate for safer, more sensible gun laws. The mothers and others marched on Mothers' Day, 2000 because they are fed up with Congress and our continual failure to pass responsible gun measures that will help protect America's children. Since the school shooting in Colorado, and the more recent one in Michigan, Congress has failed to act, so Americans have started to take gun safety into their own hands. One of those Americans is Joe Yax of Midland, Michigan. Mr. Yax was driven to action by the school shooting of Kayla Rolland. Yax said he felt nauseated when he first heard news of the shooting, and immediately thought of his own young children, and the unlocked guns he kept at home. Yax told the press that he had always planned to purchase locking devices for his guns, but he never found the time. When young Kayla was shot, not only did Mr. Yax find the time to purchase trigger locks to make his own children safer, Mr. Yax, who is a store employee of the Midwest superstore, Meijer, e-mailed the company's president to see how he could make his community safer. As a result of that e-mail, Meijer, which does not sell guns, but does sell ammunition, hunting licenses and other supplies, implemented a gun safety campaign at all of their stores. Sporting-good employees now wear buttons reading, ``Is your home gun safe? Trigger lock `em'' and trigger locks are displayed prominently at the sporting-goods counter. In addition, Meijer reduced the price of trigger locking devices to encourage more purchases. I am pleased that Joe Yax took this initiative, and I think he and Meijer should be commended for their efforts. Corporate responsibility is a necessity if we are going to reduce gun violence. Nevertheless, while Mr. Yax did what he could to improve gun safety, it is not enough. It's time for Congress to follow the lead of Mr. Yax and act to make sure our own children--America's children--are safer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation being introduced today by my friend from Wisconsin to address a problem that is unique to certain areas of Wisconsin and Michigan. In the Cities of Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, Michigan and in several Wisconsin communities, certain individual Citizens Band (CB) radio operators are using illegal equipment of a capacity which interferes with the home electronic equipment and telephone service of their neighbors. As a result, these neighbors are forced to buy filters in order to screen out the interference, and in some cases the interference is so extreme that the filters don't even work. There have also been complaints that some of these ``illegal'' CB broadcasters are using profanity which is disturbing to the neighbors and interfering with legitimate use of CB radios by truckers and others. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of Federal resources to stop the problem. In recent years, due to budget and staffing cuts, the FCC has decreased its enforcement efforts. The legislation being introduced today would authorize local jurisdictions to enforce the FCC regulations regarding use of citizens band radio equipment, while maintaining the FCC jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. The bill provides for an FCC appeal process available to any person who believes they are adversely affected by local enforcement action. FCC does not object to this approach or to this legislation. Mr. President, this legislation offers a simple solution to the inability of the FCC, due to insufficient resources, to put a stop to illegal CB equipment use in parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. The legislation would allow local officials, who are more familiar with the specific problems and complaints in their areas of jurisdiction, to be authorized to enforce FCC regulations regarding the use of CB radio equipment. The legislation has the strong support of local government officials in the Michigan communities where CB interference occurs. An identical bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. I hope this legislation will be enacted in an expedited manner so that local officials will have the ability to stop the use of illegal CB equipment that is interfering with legitimate CB use and disturbing citizens of the impacted communities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I reluctantly oppose the Wellstone amendment to transfer $225 million from the military purposes of Plan Colombia to domestic substance abuse programs. The passage of this amendment would endanger the success of the Administration's plan to attempt to prevent the democratic government of Colombia from being destroyed by narco-traffickers. While I strongly support the goal of allocating additional funding to substance abuse prevention and treatment programs, this cannot be achieved at the expense of the effectiveness of Plan Colombia. In solving the difficult problem of drug abuse and its many negative effects, the United States must seek a balanced approach. This approach must include funding for not only drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, but also for international eradication/interdiction and local law enforcement. Plan Colombia, which stresses eradication and interdiction of narcotics at their source, is a useful part of our nation's overall strategy to end drug abuse. Colombia now supplies approximately 80 percent of the cocaine and heroin consumed in the United States. The Plan Columbia aid package, which has been designed by the Administration and the Colombian government, is a comprehensive attempt to stem this flow of narcotics. The package includes important funding for counter-narcotics support, economic development, and human rights programs. A particularly important goal of this initiative is the promotion and protection of human rights in the Andean Region. In this respect, the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bill makes important contributions. The bill provides approximately $138 million in funding for efforts to protect human rights, strengthen the judicial system in Colombia, and support peace initiatives. In addition, all assistance to Colombian armed forces is contingent on a screening of security forces to ensure that they have not been implicated in human rights violations. Drug abuse has taken a terrible toll on our country. It has led to increased levels of crime, a clogged judicial system, and most dramatically, the ruined lives of our nation's citizens and their families. It is for this reason that I am committed to effective drug abuse and treatment. I have worked hard to win Senate passage of legislation which would enable qualified physicians, under strict conditions, to prescribe new anti-addiction medications aimed at suppressing heroin addiction. I have also strongly supported government funding for state and local community-based programs for drug treatment. In Fiscal Year 1999, the federal government spent approximately $5.6 billion on domestic programs directed at the reduction of drug demand.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Washington and Senator Snowe. They have been doing an important job for the Nation. We require an awful lot from the service men and women who serve us here and abroad. We ask them to volunteer to serve in the military. Then we send them all over the world to serve our Nation's interests. When we ask them to serve in foreign countries, the least we can do is to ensure they receive medical care equal to what they would receive in the United States. Servicewomen and their dependents who are fortunate enough to be stationed in the United States and who make the difficult decision to have an abortion can, at their own expense, get a legal abortion performed by a doctor in a modern, safe, American medical facility with people who speak English. Military women stationed overseas do not have that opportunity under current law. That is what the Snowe-Murray amendment would change. The alternative of seeking an abortion from a host nation doctor who may or may not be trained to U.S. standards in a foreign facility where the staff may not even speak English is an unacceptable alternative. Our servicewomen deserve better. This amendment is not about conferring a fringe benefit on military women. It is, rather, a vote to remove a barrier to fair treatment of women in the military. This amendment does not require the Department of Defense to pay for abortions. As the Senator from Washington very clearly explained again, all the expenses would be paid for by those who seek the abortion. The Defense Department calculates the cost of medical procedures in military health care facilities all the time. They routinely compute the cost of health care provided to military members and their families when seeking reimbursement, for instance, from insurance companies. Medical care, for instance, provided to a beneficiary who is injured in an automobile accident is routinely reimbursed by the insurance company of the driver at fault. To say that we cannot calculate the indirect costs of medical care to the Government is simply not an accurate statement of what takes place already. The Defense Department calculates costs--direct and indirect-- to the Government right now when it charges a third party for reimbursement. There is no requirement in this bill--quite the opposite--that the Government pay for the abortion. It makes it very clear that the person who seeks the abortion must pay for the abortion. Finally, we have heard about military doctors who have said in the past that they did not want to perform abortions. We heard one of our colleagues say that doctor after doctor said they did not want to perform an abortion. That is why this amendment provides that abortions could only be performed by American military doctors who volunteer to perform abortions. This amendment is about whether or not women who serve in the military are going to be treated as second-class citizens. That is what this amendment is about--whether it is going to be made more difficult for them when serving us abroad to exercise a constitutional right which the Supreme Court has conferred. It is very intriguing to me that the opponents of this amendment speak about a woman being able to receive transportation back to this country. They don't seem to object to that; quite the opposite. They say: Look, we are making Government-provided transportation available to the woman. Why isn't the same objection being made to that? The answer is because denial of access to a military hospital abroad for an American woman who chooses to have an abortion does not facilitate that procedure. And the opponents of this amendment, as a matter of fact, oppose this procedure. They want to make it more difficult. And forcing a woman to ask a commander to have leave and then, if transportation is going to be made available, provide transportation back to the United States to have an abortion, and then back across the ocean overseas, clearly makes it more difficult and in many cases more dangerous for that woman to have the procedure. That is what this debate is all about. It is not about whether the Government is going to pay for the abortion or whether this is a fringe benefit. It is not. The woman must pay for it in that hospital by a doctor who voluntarily agrees to perform it. This amendment is about whether or not we wish to remove a barrier which has been placed in front of a woman who chooses to exercise, at her own expense, that constitutional right. I hope the votes will be here this time to remove this badge of second-class citizenship which now exists in the law which unduly, unfairly, and sometimes dangerously restricts the right of a woman who is serving us in our military to exercise her constitutional right. I again thank my friend from Washington for her leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor Captain Joseph P. Avveduti who is retiring from the U.S. Navy in July after thirty years of outstanding service to our nation. From September 1995 to August 1996, Avveduti commanded the U.S.S. Kalamazoo. This ship is named after Kalamazoo, Michigan and the history of its service is of particular interest to Michigan residents. Captain Avveduti graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1974. Following his graduation he was designated a Naval Aviator and went on to command several Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadrons. Among his many leadership positions, Captain Avveduti served as the Executive Officer of U.S.S. Independence from January 1993 to June 1995. In 1997, Captain Avveduti graduated from the National War College in Washington, D.C. He currently holds the Chief of Naval Operations Chair at that institution where he serves as a great role model for the many young men and women in the Navy. During his career, Captain Avveduti received the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, the Air Medal and various campaign and service medals. Mr. President, Captain Joseph Avveduti's service to the U.S. Navy, and in particular his command of the U.S.S. Kalamazoo, is to be commended. The United States will lose a respected and well accomplished naval officer upon Captain Avveduti's retirement. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Captain Avveduti on his outstanding service.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment adds $5 million to the authorization of the Navy's Information Technology Center. I believe this amendment has been cleared.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Kennedy proposal has two major provisions. First, it strengthens current law as it relates to hate crimes based on race, religion and nation origin. Second, it broadens the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability. The two major provisions in the Kennedy amendment address specific loopholes in our current federal civil rights statute. Under current law, the federal government is limited in its ability to intervene in case unless it can be proved that the victim was engaged in one of six narrowly defined ``federally protected activities,'' such as enrolling in a public school, participating in a state or local program or activity, applying for or enjoying employment, serving as a juror, traveling in or using interstate commerce, and enjoying certain places of public accommodation. The other unduly severe limitation under current law is this: federal prosecution is limited to those crimes motivated by race, color, religion and national origin and does not allow for federal intervention in crimes motivated by a person's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The Senate has the ability and the responsibility to pass the Kennedy amendment and send a clear message that America is an all-inclusive nation--one that does not tolerate acts of violence based on bigotry and discrimination. Hate crimes are a special threat in a society founded on ``liberty and justice for all.'' Too many acts of violence and bigotry in the last years have put our nation's commitment to diversity in jeopardy. When Matthew Shepard, a gay student was severely beaten and left for dead or James Byrd, Jr. was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck, it was not only destructive for the victims and their families, but damaging to the victims' communities, and to our American ideals. When a member of the Aryan Nations walked into a Jewish Community Center day school and fired more than 70 rounds from his Uzi submachine gun, then killed a Filipino-American federal worker because he was considered a ``target of opportunity,'' it not only affected the families of the victims but all those who share the traits of the targeted individuals. In a united voice, we must not only condemn these acts of violence that terrorize Americans every day, but act against them. America's agenda will remain unfinished so long as incidents like those occur and statistics like the following threaten our people. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, at least one hate crime occurs each hour. These are often acts of violence, not threats, verbal-abuse or hate speech, but criminal offenses. In 1998, there were 7,755 incidents involving 9,722 victims. Of those incidents, approximately 56 percent were motivated by racial bias; 18 percent by religious bias; 16 percent by sexual-orientation bias; and the remainder by ethnicity/national origin bias, disability and multiple biases, and prejudices and hate. In my own home state of Michigan, according to the State Police, there were 578 hate crimes in the same year. According to Donald Cohen, director of Michigan's Anti-Defamation League, racist, anti-gay and anti-Semitic activity is on the rise. In October of 1998, Cohen, who monitors hate crimes for his organization said ``I can say I have seen more hate-group material circulated . . . in the last few months than I have seen in the prior two years.'' As a result, civil rights and law enforcement officials, who were concerned about the rise of hate crimes in Michigan moved to counter them by founding the Michigan Alliance Against Hate Crimes. The Alliance is a statewide coalition working to provide support to victims of hate crimes and to identify, combat and eliminate such crimes. The group was already in place last September, when this crime was committed in Grand Rapids, Michigan: a 30-year-old white man, Charles Raab, beat unconscious an African-American man, Willie Jarrett, ran him over with a car three times and dragged him with the car for 80 feet, before he dislodged the victim and fled the scene. Witnesses said that during the scene, the attacker used racial slurs to describe his victim--who suffered wounds to his back, hands, chest, and shoulders, and had half of his ear torn off. The Michigan Alliance Against Hate Crimes immediately assembled a ``rapid response team'' and worked with the local prosecutor to charge Raab, the attacker, under the Ethnic Intimidation Act--Michigan's hate crime law. In the end, Raab pleaded guilty to the charges against him and was sentenced to seven to twenty-five years in prison for the attack. The city of Grand Rapids, along with the Michigan Alliance Against Hate Crimes, made sure that the perpetrator of this heinous hate crime was prosecuted to the extent of the law. Unfortunately, not all hate crimes are prosecuted so successfully. There are several states without such Alliances and hate crimes are not prosecuted with success either because state or local authorities do not have adequate resources or personnel; state and local authorities aren't as incensed as they should be or decline to act for other reasons. In some cases, state or local authorities simply don't have jurisdiction to prosecute hate crime cases: 42 states have hate crime statutes but only 21 cover sexual orientation and disability and 22 cover gender. Michigan's Ethnic Intimidation Act, for example, is limited to crimes incited by a person's race, color, religion, gender or national origin, and does not include crimes motivated by a person's sexual orientation or disability. The FBI Statistics show that the number of reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation is third only to those based on racial bias and religious bias. My home state of Michigan has had its share of hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Last summer, an 18-year-old boy leaving a gay nightclub in Grand Rapids, Michigan was met by an attacker who was waiting outside the club in a car. The assailant jumped the young man and slashed his face with a razor blade hospitalizing him for over a week. His face is permanently scarred. A few weeks ago in Detroit, a gay man was buying cigarettes at a gas station late at night and a car full of men pulled up, accosted him and asked if he was gay. When he just walked away the men became infuriated and beat him badly, shattering his skull and putting him in a coma for several days. The assailants have not been arrested. A gay man driving in Royal Oak, Michigan was allegedly harassed and intimidated by four other motorists in a nearby car. The assailants were screaming anti-gay epithets and succeeded in running him off the road and destroying his car. The assailants then screamed at the man, spit on him, and kicked in his window. The police officer investigating the case allegedly asked multiple questions about the driver's sexual orientation and sexual activity rather than the details of the accident. The four assailants were never charged and despite the fact that witnesses and crime specialists reconstructed the scene as told by the driver, the driver was convicted of reckless driving. Local media and community leaders were outraged and called it a miscarriage of justice. This and other such stories are examples of crimes that not only affect the fundamental rights of the victim, but deprive that victim of a sense of security and self worth. These crimes are just as damaging as those motivated by race or religion, but state authorities are limited in their ability to respond because Michigan's hate crimes statute is inadequate. Congress has the opportunity to take action against these and other hate crimes, which go unprosecuted at the state level, with the passage of the Kennedy hate crimes amendment. This amendment would expand the federal definition of hate crimes to include crime motivated by a person's sexual orientation, gender or disability adding to the current list of attacks motivated by race, color, religion or national origin. The Kennedy amendment would also broaden the federal government's authority to prosecute any hate crime based on race, color, religion or national origin. Currently, federal prosecution of hate crimes is limited and U.S. attorneys have had difficulties prosecuting cases-- that state authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute--because of the need to prove that the victim of a hate crime was also targeted because of his participation in one of six specified federally protected activities. The statute's severe restrictions has prevented the federal government from prosecuting perpetrators of some of the most egregious hate crimes. For example, in recent years a jury acquitted three white supremacists who had assaulted African-Americans. After the trial, some of the jurors revealed that they felt racial animus had been established but did not believe there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendants intended to prevent the victims from engaging in a narrowly defined federally protected activity that the statute had provided. The Kennedy amendment will not make every hate crime a federal crime. Almost all hate crimes will remain the primary responsibility of sate and local law enforcement agencies. For these cases, broadening federal authority will permit joint federal-state investigations and may be useful to state and local authorities who will be able to rely on investigatory and prosecutorial assiatnce from the Department of Justice. The Kennedy amendment makes grants of up to $100,000 available to state and local law enforcement agencies who have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. For the few hate crimes that the Justice Department does act to make federal crimes, the Department will be required to use its authority sparingly, as is required with the existing authority to prosecute crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred. Prior to federally indicting someone, the Justice Department must certify and there is reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivitated by bias and the U.S. attorney has consulted with the state or local law enforcement officials and determined one of the following situations is present, under the Kennedy amendment, to show we are not creating under this amendment a situation where the Federal Government is going to be prosecuting every hate crime. There are still restrictions built in here to rely more heavily on State and local law enforcement. If one of the following situations is present, then the U.S. attorney, under certain circumstances at least, would be authorized to proceed: No. 1, the state does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction; No. 2, the state has requested that the federal government assume jurisdiction; No. 3, the state does not object to the federal government assuming jurisdiction; No. 4, or the state has completed prosecution and the verdict or sentence obtained under state law left demonstratively unvindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence. In addition, for crimes based on the three new categories--gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and in some instances, for crimes based on religion and national origin--the Kennedy amendment provides that the Federal Government must prove an interstate commerce connection showing that: No. 1, the defendant or the victim traveled across state lines; No. 2, the defendant or the victim used a channel, facility, or instrumentality of commerce; No. 3, the defendant used a firearm, explosive, incendiary device or other weapon that has traveled in commerce, or No. 4, the conduct interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of conduct. Stated simply, the Kennedy hate crimes amendment will allow for more effective and just prosecutions of hate crimes. The alternative, the Hatch proposal, which will be before the Senate, neither addresses the problems with existing law--that the victim must be engaged in a narrowly specified federally protected activity; nor does it address the limited definition of a hate crime--which excludes sexual orientation, disability, and gender. More than 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious groups as well as 22 State Attorneys General support the Kennedy amendment, and the role it gives the federal government to prosecute individuals who have committed violent acts resulting from racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic motives. This legislation is also supported by the Justice Department, and is compliant with the recent Supreme Court decision United States v. Morrison. In a June 13, 2000 letter to Senator Kennedy, the Justice Department stated clearly that the amendment ``would be constitutional under governing Supreme Court precedents'' Passage of this amendment will send the message that we are a country that treasures equality and tolerance. We will not condone the hate crimes that have plagued our nation and have had such a devastating impact on the families of Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, Jr. and too many others. I hope my colleagues will support the Kennedy amendment. This amendment will bring us closer to the time when all Americans have equal opportunities, and perpetrators of hate crimes receive swift and vigorous prosecution. I believe there is a unanimous consent order relative to the next speaker, but before the Senator from Minnesota speaks, I see the Senator from Oregon on the floor and I want to express my gratitude to him for the article that was in this morning's paper. It was an extremely beautifully written, heartfelt article. I hope every Member of this body has an opportunity to read it. I know the Senator from Oregon is too modest to do so. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. This amendment provides for reports on the progress of the Federal Government in developing information assurance strategies. I believe this has also been cleared.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3471 (Purpose: To require reports on the progress of the Federal Government in developing information assurance strategies)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today we recognize the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865, also known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was on this date that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country. Since that time, over 130 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. Mr. President, throughout the Nation, we also celebrate the many important achievements of former slaves and their descendants. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of African Americans and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Every February, nationwide, we celebrate African American History Month. And, every year on June 19, we celebrate ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' Lerone Bennett, editor, writer and lecturer recently reflected on the life and times of Dr. Woodson. In an article he wrote earlier this year for Johnson's Publications, Bennett tells us that one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African American history is the story of Woodson's struggle and rise from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement: At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history--Black history. In keeping with the spirit and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to two courageous women, claimed by my home state of Michigan, who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. These are two women of different times who would change the course of history. Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, and Rosa Parks, whose dignified leadership sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the Civil Rights movement are indelibly echoed in the chronicle of not only the history of this Nation, but are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a ground breaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan recently honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, Michigan on September 25, 1999. Truth lived in Washington, D.C. for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. On May 4, 1999 legislation was enacted which authorized the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. I was pleased to coauthor this fitting tribute to Rosa Parks-- the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Forty-four years ago in Montgomery, Alabama the modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. The boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. We have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. But we still have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle on Civil Rights and to human rights.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill that seeks to provide much needed assistance to our nation's apple and potato farmers. In the past three years, due to weather related disasters, disease and the dumping of Chinese apply juice concentrate, our nation's apple producers have lost over three-quarters of a billion dollars in revenue. Likewise, potato producers in much of the country have struggled to overcome adverse weather conditions which have reduced the value of or, in some cases, destroyed their crops. This has left many growers on the brink of financial disaster. In the past two years, Congress has assisted America's farmers by providing substantial assistance to agricultural producers. However, apple and potato producers received little, if any, of that assistance. The $115 million in assistance we are proposing will help these producers, and ensure that apple and potato growers will be able to provide the United States and the world with a quality product that is second to none. Mr. President I am proud to introduce this legislation that will directly assist our nation's apple and potato growers, and I urge all Senators to support me in this matter.