Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. That is fine. Amendment No. 3173

Mr. LEVIN. We are indeed. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I don't know of any understanding, but the chairman has a right, of course, to offer an amendment. We just understand that this amendment now is to be temporarily laid aside so the opening statements can be given. The Senator has a right to offer an amendment at any time he wishes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in bringing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 to the floor. The bill is the product of several months of bipartisan work on the part of our committee. I am, indeed, pleased to join with him in bringing this bill to the floor. This year the President added $12 billion in defense spending to last year's appropriated levels. The congressional budget resolution added an additional $4.5 billion. For the most part, the committee chose to spend the money wisely. More than three-quarters of the money added by the budget resolution would be used to meet needs that are identified as priorities by the Joint Chiefs, or to accelerate items that are included in the future years' defense plan. I may not agree with every provision in the bill--I do not--but S. 2549 overall is a sound bill that basically continues the bipartisan partnership between the Congress and the administration. This bill would build on the budget that was presented by the Department of Defense to improve the quality of life for the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, and to transform our military to ensure they are capable of meeting the threats to American security in the 21st century. I am particularly pleased the bill would implement the administration's proposal to address shortcomings in the health care we provide for our military personnel and retirees. Indeed, the bill would go a step further than the administration proposed and provide a prescription drug benefit for military retirees. I am appalled, and I hope most of us are appalled, by the rising cost of pharmaceuticals in this country and by the growing gap between the prices paid for drugs by our citizens and people who live in other countries. We have taken an important first step in this bill in agreeing to address the problem for military retirees. But it is my hope, perhaps during the course of this bill, and surely before the end of this Congress, we will be able to provide a similar benefit for Medicare beneficiaries whether they are military retirees or otherwise. All of our seniors--all of our seniors--should have an opportunity to purchase prescription drugs and not be precluded by an inability to pay the outrageous costs which prescription drugs now present to too many of our seniors. The committee also made the right decision in supporting the Army transformation plan that was put forward by Secretary of the Army Caldera, and Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki. The committee concluded the Army needs to transform itself into a lighter, more lethal, survivable and tactically mobile force, and we approved all the funds that were requested by the Army for that purpose. In fact, we even added some research money that the Army said would help the long- term transformation process. At the same time, we have instructed the Army to prepare a detailed roadmap for the transformation initiative, and to conduct appropriate testing and experimentation to ensure the transformation effort is successful. The Department has made a strong commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the committee supports that effort. While our bill recognizes that slippage in the test schedule is virtually certain to result in a delay of the next milestone decision, we remain open to reprogramming of funds to enable the Department to make that decision in the year 2001, if it proves possible to meet a tighter schedule. I am also pleased the bill reported by the Armed Services Committee provides full funding for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the three ongoing Department of Energy cooperative programs with Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union. These programs serve as one of the cornerstones of our relationship with Russia and play an important role in our national security by reducing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from Russia or from rogue nations with which Russia may otherwise be tempted to form closer ties in the absence of these programs. While some restrictive language has been included in the bill, I am hopeful this language will not undermine the effectiveness of the programs. I am disappointed the committee chose not to provide $100 million for a new, long-term Russian nonproliferation program at the Department of Energy. This program would allow the Department of Energy to accelerate the closure of portions of Russian nuclear weapons complexes and secure additional nuclear materials. I am hopeful, with the help of other Senators, we can address this issue in the course of our debate on the Senate floor or perhaps in conference. The committee bill would authorize $85 million of military construction sought in fiscal year 2001 by the administration to begin construction of a national missile defense site. The President's budget explains this request as follows: The budget includes sufficient funding so that if the administration decides in 2000 to proceed with deployment of a limited system, the resources will be available to quickly proceed toward a 2005 initial capability. I emphasize the word ``if.'' It is my understanding that this funding is provided consistent with the President's request in the event the President decides to proceed with the deployment of a limited national missile defense. As indicated in the President's budget, this decision will be based on an assessment of four factors: one, the assessment of the threat; two, the status of technology based on an initial series of flight tests and the proposed system's operational effectiveness; three, the cost of the system; and four, the implications of going forward with a national missile defense deployment in terms of the overall strategic environment and our arms control objectives, including efforts to achieve further reductions in strategic nuclear arms under START II and III. As our chairman said, the committee spent a great deal of time addressing the status of training exercises by Navy and Marine Corps personnel on the island of Vieques. As we all know, training on Vieques was suspended last year after the tragic death of a security guard at the training range. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and others have testified before the committee that there is no adequate substitute for the live-fire training on the island of Vieques. Earlier this year, the President entered into an agreement with the Governor of Puerto Rico which establishes an orderly process for what we all hope will be the resumption of such training. As of today, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has lived up to its obligations under the agreement. The Navy training on Vieques has been cleared of protesters with the assistance of the government of Puerto Rico, and the Navy training exercises have now resumed on the island with the use of inert ordnance as provided in the agreement. During the course of our markup, the committee considered proposed legislation which would have been inconsistent with this agreement. In my view, unilateral changes to or actions in violation of the terms of the agreement at a time when the government of Puerto Rico is living up to its obligations under the agreement would have sent exactly the wrong signal. Such changes would have offended many citizens of Vieques and others throughout Puerto Rico, undermining the efforts of the Navy and this committee to eventually resume live-fire training on Vieques. In the end, the committee included legislation that would implement the provisions of the agreement that call for limited economic assistance and holding a referendum on the island of Vieques. With regard to the other element of the agreement--the transfer of specific land to Puerto Rico under certain circumstances--the legislation is silent, deferring congressional action until a later date. While I would have preferred to fully implement the agreement between the President and the Governor of Puerto Rico at this time, avoiding unilateral changes to the terms of the agreement was the next best outcome. In light of the position taken on the floor of the House, I expect we will have an opportunity to further consider this issue in conference. One area where I am very disappointed with the outcome of the markup is the organization of the Department of Energy. Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act contained provisions reorganizing the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex by creating a new ``semi-autonomous'' National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, within the Department of Energy. These provisions, which were added in conference, were inconsistent with legislation passed in the Senate by a vote of 96-1 and went far beyond anything that was even considered by the House. The Secretary of Energy dual-hatted a number of key NNSA employees, authorizing them to serve concurrently in both NNSA positions and DOE positions outside the NNSA. Although the provisions establishing the NNSA did not contain any provision prohibiting dual-hatting, many members of our committee believed this approach was inconsistent with the legislation. This bill responds to that perceived violation of the statute with provisions that would, one, prohibit the Department of Energy from paying any NNSA officials who are dual-hatted and, two, prohibit the Secretary of Energy from changing the organization of the NNSA in any way. These are unprecedented restrictions on the ability of a Cabinet Secretary to manage his own Department and undermine our ability to hold Secretary Richardson and his successors accountable for the activities of the Department of Energy. Dual-hatting is commonplace throughout the Government and has been legally permissible since we repealed the Dual Office Holding Act of 1894 more than 35 years ago. Moreover, the Secretary provided our committee with a legal opinion which concluded that such dual-hatting is permissible. In any case, the prohibition on reorganization is completely unnecessary in light of the express prohibition on dual-hatting. The reorganization prohibition would go far beyond its stated purpose of addressing dual-hatting, and it would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from even establishing, altering, or consolidating any organizational unit, component, or function of the NNSA regardless of demands of efficiency or accountability. Last year, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board reported that the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex had become organizationally ``dysfunctional.'' Much of this organization remains unchanged despite its transfer to the new NNSA. Yet the provision added in our committee would prohibit the Secretary from addressing that problem. In short, the Department of Energy organization provisions not only fail to address the problems identified by its sponsors, which is the dual-hatting problem, but go way beyond that and thereby undermine the ability of the Secretary of Energy to address many of the concerns that led to the enactment of last year's legislation in the first place. I am also disappointed that the bill does not contain a base closure provision. Last year, as this year, the top military and civilian leadership of the Department of Defense came to us and told us that more base closures are critical to saving billions of dollars needed to meet our future national security needs. Year after year, some Members express concerns about shortfalls in the defense budget and then reject the one measure that would do the most to help the Department address those shortfalls in the long term. Secretary Cohen said recently his biggest disappointment as Secretary has been that the Department of Defense still has too much overhead and that he has not been able to persuade his former colleagues--meaning us--that they are going to have to have more base closures. Authorizing a new round of base closures is an issue of political will to meet our long-term security needs. In the course of our debate on this bill, Senator McCain and I plan to again offer an amendment to allow more base closures. Finally, I will mention two other issues. First, the bill contains a provision that would replace the School of the Americas with a new Western Hemisphere Institute for Professional Education and Training which would provide a broad curriculum of studies, including human rights training, to both military and civilian leaders of democratic countries. I hope this step will allow us to put the controversial history of this institution behind us while we look instead to the future. Second, the bill contains an amendment I offered to prohibit the Department of Defense from selling to the general public any armor- piercing ammunition or armor-piercing components that may have been declared excess to the Department's needs. This prohibition was enacted on a 1-year basis in last year's Defense Appropriations Act, and Senator Durbin has introduced a bill in the Senate to make the ban permanent. There is no possible justification for selling armor-piercing ammunition to the general public. I am pleased that we have taken this step toward enacting the ban into permanent law. Again, I thank Senator Warner for his work as chairman of the committee. There are a lot of provisions in the bill, and there will be, I am sure, a lot of amendments which will be offered in the course of our deliberations on the Senate floor. I think we all look forward to a full debate on all of the issues that will be presented to us. I am wondering if Senator Warner is on the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Arizona for his tremendous sensitivity to the issue that he raises. We still have service members who are receiving food stamps and that should not be the case. If there is good news here--and there is--it is that, since 1991, the number of service members on food stamps has been dramatically reduced, as well as the percentage in the total force has gone down dramatically since 1991. In 1991, there were 19,400 service members receiving food stamps. That number went to 11,900 in 1995, and then in 1999 it went to 6,300. That number--which is the latest we have--does not include the fiscal year 1999 or a later pay raise. So we have at least some good news in this area, which is that the number of service personnel on food stamps has been reduced by about two-thirds since 1991. As a percentage of our total force, the percentage has been cut roughly in half, from .9 percent in 1991 to .45 percent in 1999. So there has been significant improvement. Senator McCain is absolutely right. We still have 6,300 service members on food stamps. We should not be in that situation. He is pointing out to this body again that we should try to do something about it. The informal estimate we get is that his amendment will help. It will not eliminate the number of people who we have on food stamps, but it will reduce by somewhat that number of 6,300. I am going to support it on that basis. Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his constant raising of this issue until we can try to finally resolve this problem. There is one little wrinkle in here which is sort of an irony, I guess. Maybe that is the best it is. For instance, if you take a typical E4 with three dependents who lives on base in Government housing, he will get the food stamps because he doesn't have a housing allowance. The person under this proposal who might be a similar E4 with the same number of dependents gets a housing allowance if he lives off base, and it is that housing allowance which pushes him above the eligibility level for food stamps. Yet, because that housing allowance may be inadequate to pay for housing, he may actually be in greater need for the food stamps than the person who is on base. However, that is something we will just have to try to work with. We have to try to make this work the best we possibly can to reduce the number of further service members who are receiving food stamps. Again, I thank Senator McCain for his constancy, his commitment, his dedication, and his passion to this issue. He is right, as he so often is in terms of what this goal must be, which is to remove members in the services from receiving food stamps. They should not need food stamps. We ought to be able to pay them enough and give them enough of a housing allowance so there is no need for them to receive food stamps. I commend him. I will be supporting this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for just one procedural question?

Mr. LEVIN. I think I did say the Nuclear Posture Review of 1994, which was a thoughtful review which supports START II levels. The Commander has been precluded from going to that by our law.

Mr. LEVIN. Is it the intention, then, of the Senator from Virginia to modify his pending amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership in this matter. This is a relatively small contribution from the people, acting through its Congress. The private sector is funding 95 percent of this effort. This is really symbolic almost, but it is an important contribution. It symbolizes where the heart of this institution, this Congress, is, and reflects where the American people are because they would, I think, applaud what the good Senator from Virginia is doing here tonight, and I am happy to join. I thank him. He points out many things that I won't amplify, given the hour, except to say it is surely the right day today, this 56th anniversary of D-Day. When he talks about how the American people who participated in that effort are all being honored, surely first and foremost are our veterans, but all the American people who are behind them; it is such an important point for all of us to remember. I remember as a kid the minute, little contribution we kids were making, going around the streets looking for wrappers that we could peel off the foil, put it together in a little ball of metal, and then, with all the little balls of metal, put together a tank or an airplane. But first and foremost, obviously, it is the veterans, those who didn't come back and those who did. I thank the Senator from Virginia for doing this. I don't know if he listed all the cosponsors.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Admiral Hutson will retire from the Navy on August 1, 2000, having completed a distinguished 27-year career of service to our Nation. Admiral Hutson was born in North Muskegon, Michigan, and is a graduate of Michigan State University and the University of Minnesota Law School. He also earned a Master of Laws degree in labor law from Georgetown University Law Center. During his military career, Admiral Hutson excelled at all facets of his chosen professions of law and naval service. He served as a trial and defense counsel at the Law Center, Corpus Christi, Texas, faithfully preserving military justice at its very foundations. As a staff judge advocate, he provided legal counsel to Commanding Officers at Naval Air Station, Point Mugu, California, and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine. He served as an instructor and later as the Commanding Officer of Naval Justice School, Newport, Rhode Island, playing a critical role in preparing and mentoring future generations of judge advocates. As the Executive Officer of the Naval Legal Service Office, Newport, Rhode Island, and later the Commanding Officer, Naval Legal Service Office, Europe and Southwest Asia, Naples, Italy, Admiral Hutson proved to be an inspiring leader. He guided young judge advocates in the understanding, appreciation and dedication of their roles as both judge advocates and naval officers, exemplifying the Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment. During his career Admiral Hutson also provided counsel and support to senior leaders while serving as the Staff Judge Advocate and Executive Assistant to the Commander, Naval Investigative Command and as Executive Assistant to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. I am sure many of my colleagues remember and appreciate Admiral Hutson's service as a legislative counsel and later as the Director of Legislation in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. During these assignments, he directly contributed to clear and thorough communication with Congress on the interests of the Navy in a broad range of legislative matters. Admiral Hutson's dedication to service and superior performance in all assignments appropriately culminated in his appointment as the 36th Judge Advocate General of the Navy. In this role, he provided invaluable legal service to both the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He fulfilled these duties with great distinction, leaving the Judge Advocate General's Corps strong and well-prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. It is fitting that following his retirement Admiral Hutson will become the Dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, where he will continue to lead and mentor future servants of the law. Mr. President, the Nation, the United States Navy, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps have been made better through the talent and dedication of Rear Admiral John D. Hutson. I know all of my colleagues join me in wishing him and his wife, Paula, fair winds and following seas.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Senate began consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a reauthorization bill that would determine our national education policy. We spent a few days on that bill, offering and debating amendments, to reduce class size and reward teachers who improve student achievement, among other things. On May 9, 2000, the Majority Leader withdrew the education bill from consideration, and the Senate moved on to other business. At the time, the Majority Leader indicated his intent to come back to the education bill, either later in that same week, or the week after. It is now more than three weeks later and Congress is preparing to adjourn for the Memorial Day recess without addressing a critical component of our national education policy: school safety. The education bill was likely withdrawn from the Senate because of the possibility of a school safety amendment aimed at curbing gun violence. Unfortunately, education and gun violence are now inseparable issues. The wave of school shootings--in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Littleton, Colorado, and recently, in Mt. Morris Township, Michigan-- has changed America's perception of safety in school. Over the last few years, we have made some gains. Over the four year period, from 1993 to 1997, the percentage of high school students who carried a weapon to school declined from 12% to 9%; the rate of crime against students ages 12 to 18 fell one-third; and 90 percent of schools reported no incidents of serious violent crime in 1996-1997. Despite these gains, students feel less safe at school, and access to guns is a primary reason why. School violence, or even the threat of school violence, instills fear in our students, and limits their ability to learn. School violence also threatens and intimidates teachers--making instruction more difficult. The learning environment is in jeopardy, and unless we address the vulnerabilities of our schools, many of our other efforts to improve the education system will be undermined. I'm sure all of us agree that any act of violence--whether it's as common as a fist fight in the locker room or as extreme as a shoot out in the cafeteria--interferes with the educational process. Ron Astor, an assistant professor of social work and education at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, has said: ``Violence in schools . . . interferes with children's physical well being, academic functioning, social relations, and emotional and cognitive development.'' School violence has always posed a threat to students and teachers, but the advent of gun violence in schools has escalated the problem. Gun violence, not only affects students at a particular school, it has a rippling effect on students at schools in the same county, state, and in some cases, the entire country. I have a letter from Professor Astor, who wrote to me earlier this month, when the Senate was debating education policy. Professor Astor has been researching the topic of school violence for over 17 years, and has produced 23 publications on the topic. His research gives us a clear understanding of how gun violence, and the fear of gun violence, impacts schools in Michigan, and in the United States. Professor Astor writes: Dear Senator Levin, I am pleased that the Senate is debating the topic of education in our nation. As a professor of education, I hope that you will include in your discussions the issue of school safety. As you know, the general public is seriously concerned with the safety of our schools. Polls taken over the past seven years indicated that the public considers school violence to be the top problem facing U.S. schools. Hopefully, the Senate's efforts will result in policy and legislation that make our schools safer for our children. He continues: Clearly, teachers, students, and school staff are most concerned about the presence of firearms and weapons in our schools. In the context of a discussion on guns and mass shootings, consider the fear described by this middle school teacher who participated in one of our studies: ``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). Professor Astor goes on: In our studies, students and school staff often mention fear from the threat of guns and other lethal weapons. Without a doubt, the knowledge or rumor of a gun in a school instills fear in the school community. Teachers and students are well aware that the shocking mass murders recently perpetrated in schools are exclusively associated with firearms. Our country has a long history of lethal acts in schools (see Kachur et al, 1996 in the Journal of the American Medical Association), however, the use of guns as a weapon of choice, has made multiple murders a more common occurrence. This, in turn, has promoted a high level of fear within schools. Obviously, the fear of death or potential catastrophe is not conducive with a positive learning environment. Consequently, I urge you and your colleagues to take a strong stance on the issue of firearms. Professor Astor quotes a middle school teacher frightened by the thought of a school shooting, and she is not alone. Teachers and students across this nation fear what may happen to them in the classroom. Those of us who feel strongly about education and school safety must do something to ease their fears. Congress must curb young people's access to guns. We must pass legislation designed to reduce the level of gun violence, and the fear of such violence, in our communities. Gun violence is certainly not the only cause of fear in school. Professor Astor explains, that in addition to concerns about firearms, teachers and students fear more common forms of violence, such as fist fights, sexual harassment, teasing and bullying. All violence in school is unacceptable and we should continue to work toward curbing any and all student harm. But gun violence is a dominant cause of fear among teachers and students in our schools We have the opportunity to take the first step toward establishing a safer and more secure school environment, by among other things, passing the juvenile justice bill which would ban juvenile possession of assault weapons and close the gun show loophole. But if we can not pass the juvenile justice bill, we will use other means to prevent the gun violence that has plagued too many American schools and communities. I hope this Senate will continue its debate on this country's long- term education needs and at the same time, work toward finding a long- term solution for reducing the shootings in American schools. Students around the country may be off for the summer, but Congress will have to keep working until we can make the grade on school safety. I ask unanimous consent to submit the full text of Professor Astor's letter in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed the two nominees for the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Marianne Battani and David Lawson. Mr. President, Michigan could not be better served. These nominees are well-known in Michigan for their long and distinguished careers, high standards of moral and ethical conduct, and knowledge and commitment to the law. I have every confidence that they will both be outstanding federal judges. While I am glad that the Senate has finally confirmed these two district court judges, I am deeply concerned about the vacancies in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The length of time that nominees for these positions have remained pending is unfair, both to the nominees, and to the State of Michigan. There are now three Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit. One of the nominees for these vacancies is Helene White, who was nominated more than three years ago, and is still awaiting a hearing. Kathleen McCree Lewis has been pending at the Committee awaiting a hearing for more than eight months. And the third candidate for a Michigan seat has not yet been nominated but hopefully will be at any time. These Michigan candidates are intelligent and hardworking advocates of the law, who at a minimum, deserve to have and up or down vote on their nominations. Yet, Circuit Court of Appeals nominees continue to face unconscionable delays in this Senate. The Senate slowdown has a serious impact on the administration of justice. In a March 20, 2000 letter to Senator Hatch, Judge Gilbert Merritt, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, notes that these vacancies have hampered the Court's ability to complete the public's business. The Court, in his words, is deteriorating rapidly due to the high number of judicial vacancies. Judge Merritt writes: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals now has four vacancies. Twenty-five per cent of the seats on the Sixth Circuit are vacant. The Court is hurting badly and will not be able to keep up with its work load due to the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee has acted on none of the nominations to our Court. One of the vacancies is five years old and no vote has ever been taken. One is two years old. We have lost many years of judge time because of the vacancies. By the time the next President is inaugurated, there will be six vacancies on the Court of Appeals. Almost half of the Court will be vacant and will remain so for most of 2001 due to the exigencies of the nomination process. Although the President has nominated candidates, the Senate has refused to take a vote on any of them. Our Court should not be treated in this fashion. The public's business should not be treated this way. The litigants in the federal courts should not be treated this way. The remaining judges on a court should not be treated this way. The situation in our Court is rapidly deteriorating due to the fact that 25% of the judgeships are vacant. Each active judge of our Court is now participating in deciding more than 550 cases a year--a case load that is excessive by any standard. In addition, we have almost 200 death penalty cases that will be facing us before the end of next year. I presently have six pending before me right now and many more in the pipeline. Although the death cases are very time consuming (the records often run to 5000 pages), we are under very short deadlines imposed by Congress for acting on these cases. Under present circumstances, we will be unable to meet these deadlines. Unlike the Supreme Court, we have no discretionary jurisdiction and must hear every case. The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate ``advise'' as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all, thereby leaving the courts in limbo, understaffed and unable properly to carry out their responsibilities for each year. I again urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to promptly hold a confirmation hearing for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nominees from Michigan. They are highly qualified individuals who deserve to be voted on by this Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be voting today against the nomination of Mr. Bradley Smith to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission. It is with a fair amount of reluctance that I take this position, given the longstanding custom of allowing each party to appoint its own choices to this six member commission and the fact that FEC nominees are, by statute, supposed to be the representatives of their political parties on that commission. I respect that history. I also believe Mr. Smith is a man of intelligence, integrity, and competence. So, my vote against his nomination is not a vote against him as a person. Nor will I vote against him because I disagree strongly with most of Mr. Smith's opinions on the campaign finance system. He favors no contribution limits; I think they are essential. He doesn't see a link between corruption or the appearance of corruption and the contributions made to candidates and holders of public office; I do. He thinks the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Federal Election Commission should be dismantled; I don't. The reason I will vote ``no'' is because I cannot support the nomination of an individual to the position of commissioner of an agency which the nominee doesn't think should exist or which has as its operating statute one which the nominee thinks should be repealed. I do not relish voting against this nominee to the FEC offered by the Republican leadership but Mr. Smith's opposition to the existence of the institution to which he is being nominated compels me to vote against him.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will close a loop hole in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for employees of the Copper Range Company, formerly the White Pine Company, a copper mine in White Pine, Michigan. My legislation will extend TAA benefits to those employees who were responsible for performing the environmental remediation that was required to close the facility. My legislation is needed because these employees were unfairly excluded from the TAA certification that applied to other workers at the facility simply because the service they provide, environmental remediation, does not technically support the production of the article that the mine produced: copper. My legislation simply extends TAA coverage to those few workers who remained at the facility with responsibility for the environmental remediation necessary to close the facility. The Copper Range Company received NAFTA-TAA certification in 1995 when it began closing down. The company was still in the process of closing down in 1997 and received re-certification at that time. As of the end of 1999, there were still workers at the plant engaged in the final stages of closing down. Their work consisted of environmental remediation. When the plant applied for re-certification in September for purposes of covering these workers, the Department of Labor (DoL) denied the request because DoL said that the remaining workers were not performing a job ending because of transplant to another NAFTA country; they were performing environmental remediation, not production of copper. Mr. President, this is an unfair catch-22 situation that must be rectified legislatively. The legislation I am introducing today would provide those few employees involved in the final stages of closing down the mine with the same TAA benefits their co-workers received. The total number of workers at issue is small and my legislative fix is straightforward. I hope this legislation can be adopted quickly so that these Michigan workers who have fallen through the cracks can access the TAA benefits they rightfully deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will close a loop hole in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for employees of the Copper Range Company, formerly the White Pine Company, a copper mine in White Pine, Michigan. My legislation will extend TAA benefits to those employees who were responsible for performing the environmental remediation that was required to close the facility. My legislation is needed because these employees were unfairly excluded from the TAA certification that applied to other workers at the facility simply because the service they provide, environmental remediation, does not technically support the production of the article that the mine produced: copper. My legislation simply extends TAA coverage to those few workers who remained at the facility with responsibility for the environmental remediation necessary to close the facility. The Copper Range Company received NAFTA-TAA certification in 1995 when it began closing down. The company was still in the process of closing down in 1997 and received re-certification at that time. As of the end of 1999, there were still workers at the plant engaged in the final stages of closing down. Their work consisted of environmental remediation. When the plant applied for re-certification in September for purposes of covering these workers, the Department of Labor (DoL) denied the request because DoL said that the remaining workers were not performing a job ending because of transplant to another NAFTA country; they were performing environmental remediation, not production of copper. Mr. President, this is an unfair catch-22 situation that must be rectified legislatively. The legislation I am introducing today would provide those few employees involved in the final stages of closing down the mine with the same TAA benefits their co-workers received. The total number of workers at issue is small and my legislative fix is straightforward. I hope this legislation can be adopted quickly so that these Michigan workers who have fallen through the cracks can access the TAA benefits they rightfully deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia might then reserve the last 10 minutes of his remarks from 2:10 to 2:20, allowing Senator Daschle to conclude by 2:30, so we could have the vote at 2:30.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would allow the proponents to conclude, since we have to carry the burden here. Senator Daschle also wants to speak. If the Senator could speak his last 15 minutes, say, from 2 to 2:15, allowing the proponents to wind up, I think that would be the fair way to break this down.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask the Chair how much time remains on our side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Hagel for a statement which is very meaningful because of the broad picture he drew, and also the interrelationship between what we are voting on and the whole host of other issues that are connected to it and impacted by it, as well as for the life experience and the life study he has brought to these questions. In response to the good Senator from Virginia, I can only say what was voted on in the House yesterday is dramatically different from what we will be voting on. In addition to the funds that he made reference to that we have spent to avoid a wider war, even greater expenditures of funds have been well spent, in my judgment. And, indeed, the good chairman of our committee has been very supportive of those efforts. We should not pull back from the success which has been achieved because the American people have made a commitment to stability in the Balkans to avoid a much broader problem in Europe and around the world.

Mr. LEVIN. The question is whether it is wise to do this when we have just been successful in Kosovo. In Somalia, we had determined to withdraw. The sponsors of this language suggest we are not exactly determining to withdraw; we are sort of planning to withdraw and we can change our mind. That was not the case in Somalia. In Somalia, we had decided--and I very strongly supported the decision--to withdraw. It was time to withdraw and we made that decision. It was the right one. It was wise in the circumstances. We decided to pull our forces out. Here it seems to me that is the question: Do we want to pull our forces out now? To say now that a year from now our forces are out of there? It seems to me that is the question, not the power of Congress. The constitutional question, if put to this body, I hope would have a 100-0 vote that we have the power to do what is being proposed. But on whether it is wise when we have just been successful--part of a coalition fighting together for the first time, putting pressure on our allies to do more; succeeding in that pressure, they responded with now up to 85 percent of the ground forces--in that same language to say we are planning now on getting out a year from now, that is the question. It is the wisdom of this language, not the power of Congress to pass it. I thank my good friend from West Virginia and yield up to 20 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 1 minute on my time.