Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is also my understanding that this legislation is not intended to authorize any delay in the issuance of a rule.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the year that has passed since the tragic events at Columbine High School has been a time of soul searching for many Americans. We have had to ask ourselves some troubling questions. How did we let this happen? Why have we failed to pass sensible gun safety measures? Why doesn't the safety of our children count as much in Congress as the lobbying muscle of the National Rifle Association, NRA? Why did it take 15 deaths at Columbine to get us to take notice? Why wasn't a single death of a school child enough to make us realize the danger to which we have exposed our children in schools across the land? Speeches alone will not turn the tide in the battle over sensible gun laws. But those of us who believe we must do more to close the loopholes in the law which give minors access to guns have to match the single-mindedness of a single issue group like the NRA with our own focused determination. Just a few weeks ago, knowing that Congress was about to recess after again failing to take action on gun safety legislation, I offered these words: For the students of Columbine, every day is a struggle, every day takes another act of courage. There is nothing we can do in Congress to change that, but there is something we can do to protect other students from the nightmares, the anger, and the pain, as told by these students. Congress owes it to Columbine and to the American people to try to end school shootings and reduce access to guns among young people. As of the one-year anniversary, Congress has failed to do so. Over the last year, many Americans have decided to speak out on this issue. They are fed up with the intolerable level of gun violence in this country. They are outraged by the sight of a chain of preschoolers fleeing hand-in-hand from a deranged gunman. And, they are disheartened by the thought of a first grader shooting another first grader. On Mothers' Day, May 14, they will bring a powerful message to Washington and to 30 communities across the Nation, including Lansing: it is time for Congress to pass commonsense gun legislation. What began 9 months ago, with two mothers and unparalleled dedication, has become the Million Mom March, the first-ever national march for gun safety. As a Dad who supports this march, I plan to walk along side Michigan mothers, future mothers, and all those willing to be ``honorary mothers'' calling for sensible gun laws and safe kids. In a few weeks, another school year will come to an end, but the push to enact sensible gun legislation will continue during this Congress, and every one thereafter, until we get it done. And, because of the efforts of the Million Mom Marchers and other Americans who are speaking out on this issue, I believe we will prevail.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I read the committee report relative to this constitutional amendment from beginning to end. I did so because of the extraordinarily important issue which has been raised by Senators Kyl and Feinstein, and others: an effort on their part to provide some compassion and some relief to victims of crime. I have tremendous respect for their effort and those of their cosponsors. After reading the committee report and giving a lot of thought to this issue, I have decided to oppose the amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, we all start with the proposition that we want victims to have rights and Congress and the State legislatures should act to provide those rights. I do not think there is a lot of dispute about that issue. The question that is before us in this constitutional amendment is whether or not the way to achieve that goal is through an amendment to our basic document. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to amend the Constitution for a number of reasons. First, the desired goals can be achieved by statute. Every State has a constitutional amendment or a statute which protects victims' rights. I do not believe there is one statute or one constitutional amendment in any State protecting victims' rights that has been held to be unconstitutional. One of the complaints seems to be that State statutes and State constitutional provisions are not being enforced adequately. Take, for example, a story that Marlene Young, executive director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, brought to the attention of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution in February. This is what she said: Just within the past 2 weeks, our office received a copy of a letter published in the Sumter (Georgia) Free Press. It reads in part: ``I write this letter as a victim, not only of the person who violated me but as a victim of a system gone bad. . . . I was sexually battered here in Sumter County. I chose to press charges. Several days after the arrest and release of the accused, I received a packet from the court which included a list of my rights as defined by Georgia State law. I should have received this information from (the detective) the day I gave my statement. Georgia Law states that the investigator will provide the victim with a copy of Georgia Victims Bill of Rights in plain English upon initial contact. . . . Victims are everywhere and we have the right to be protected under Georgia Law. How many other victims are there who don't know what their rights are because the agencies are not working together? Lucky for me, to date, I have not been further injured by the accused. Others in this country may not be as lucky as I have been. It is time the victims of crimes be treated with respect and the laws set forth by the State of Georgia be followed. At what point are the laws of this state important to the authorities?'' So, the problem in that case, and in so many other cases, was not that the law in Georgia was incapable of protecting the victim; the problem was that the law was not carried out or enforced. Georgia has a State statute guaranteeing victims' rights, and the officials in Sumter County did not abide by that statute or implement it in her case. Is that a reason for a Federal constitutional amendment? Or is it, instead, a plea to the Georgia attorney general--who supports a constitutional victims' rights amendment, by the way, as is documented by his signature on a letter to us--to enforce the laws of his State? I argue that it is the latter. Then we have the extraordinary testimony of Professor Laurence Tribe. Professor Tribe starts our with the proposition that: The States and Congress, within their respective jurisdictions, already have ample affirmative authority to enact rules protecting these rights, referring to the rights of victims. Then he says: The problem . . . is that such rules are likely, as experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer inertia. . . . What Professor Tribe is saying is that it is justifiable to amend the Constitution of the United States because statutes that are on the books are not enforced. That argument not only falls short of Madison's test that there be a ``great and extraordinary'' need before the Constitution is amended, it does not even come close. It is particularly inappropriate to amend the Constitution when the interests sought to be protected are so complex and are still in formation. The question of who is a victim alone is a subject of much discussion. We have had tragic instances in recent history, in New York City and in Oklahoma City, where the bombings of buildings created literally hundreds of victims--the families of those who were killed and the survivors. Are all of them to be given the protection that is set forth in this constitutional amendment? What restrictions can be put on their rights by statute? What about persons making false claims against others, charging others with a crime? That person, an alleged victim, is given standing to argue against bond in order to keep the person he falsely accused in jail, without bond, awaiting a trial. We have had too many instances of false accusations, including one recent notorious story of schoolteacher of 32 years, who taught not too far from here, and was falsely accused by his students of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The possibility for injustices of many varieties should be explored, as they are currently being explored in the 50 States, all of which have either statutes or constitutional amendments that provide various means of protection for victims. The pending amendment will be implemented by congressional enactment. Congress will be legislating for 50 State criminal court systems, which handle 95 percent of the criminal cases in this country. Far better for us to pass legislation that will strengthen victims' rights in Federal criminal cases, over which we have jurisdiction, and test the dozens of critical concepts which are involved in the effort to provide victims with rights, including: Who victims are? What is the impact on prosecutions? Is it negative, as some in law enforcement believe? Will there be undue delays caused by the meaning of the many issues that are open to litigation? The Conference of Chief Justices of the States of the United States wrote a very compelling letter, part of which reads as follows: . . . all states have some type of statutory guarantee for the protection of victims' rights, most of which have been enacted recently. At least 31 of the states also have constitutional provisions and these enactments provide victims with the opportunity to be heard at the various stages of criminal litigation, particularly at the point of sentencing and in respect to release on bail or on parole. Most states are considering further constitutional changes. If the sponsors of S.J. Res. 3 are searching for a single settled law governing victims, the goal will not be achieved through a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Preempting each State's existing laws in favor of a broad Federal law will create additional complexities and unpredictability for litigation in both State and Federal courts for years to come. We believe that the existing extensive state efforts provide a significantly more prudent and flexible approach for testing and refining the evolving legal concepts concerning victims rights. When the chief justices of our State courts make such a compelling argument, it seems to me that this body--always sensitive to the fact that we live in a Federal system--should give it great attention. Supporters have argued in the report at one place that the reason for this constitutional amendment is to ``establish consistent, uniform rights'' for crime victims in this country. On the other hand, in the same report the sponsors talk about giving the 50 different States the authority to ``flesh out the countours of the amendment by providing definitions of victims' and crimes of violence.' '' They cannot have that argument both ways. The subject of trying to provide rights for victims in Federal criminal cases is ripe for Federal statute, but it is wrong--it is simply wrong--to treat the Constitution as though it were a statute book. This amendment does not meet the test of Federalist No. 49. This great document, written by James Madison, said that a constitutional amendment provision should be reserved ``for certain great and extraordinary occasions.'' This is an occasion where the cause is surely important and great, but the cause may be achieved by statutory means. It is not appropriate to amend the Constitution for this occasion. As a student and as a young lawyer, I grew to revere the Constitution. As an American, I thank God for it every day. Amending this hallowed document should be done when a great interest cannot otherwise be protected and when it can be described simply and in transcendent language. The amendment before us does not meet that test. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week, as the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting approached, rumors of copycat violence prompted panic among teachers and students. Principals and administrators sensitive to such rumors heightened security by bringing in police protection and extra security guards. Other districts relied on parents and community volunteers to monitor school activity, and still others canceled classes altogether rather than suffer the fate of a school shooting, or even the threat of one. For the most part, on the day the nation remembered Columbine, the rumors turned out to be just that--rumors. But the day did not go by without an act of copycat violence. The tragedy occurred, not here in the United States, but in Ottawa in the province of Ontario, Canada. An article in the Ottawa Citizen describes the attack by a 15-year- old boy as one directly linked to the Columbine killings. The teen-age boy was apparently obsessed with the school massacre, and reportedly had photographs of the Columbine killers posted in his school locker. Students remember the accused counting down the days in eager anticipation of the exact moment Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold began their reign of terror. In many ways, the student in Ottawa had similar experiences to those of Harris and Klebold. Classmates teased him because of his appearance. He felt depressed and suicidal. He longed to be noticed, and perhaps thought this act of violence would give him the notoriety he craved. And so, exactly one year and a few minutes after the Columbine massacre began, a boy in Ottawa picked up his backpack and pulled out his weapon. Both scenarios seem similar but there is one critical difference between the now infamous April 20th act of violence in Littleton and the more recent one in Ottawa that garnered virtually no attention. That crucial, critical difference--the weapon. Despite the Canadian boy's obsession with Columbine, his copycat crime was not carried out with an arsenal of semiautomatic guns, but with a kitchen knife. The weapon he pulled from his backpack caused great pain and anguish, but in the end, none of the five people he stabbed sustained any life-threatening injuries. By comparison, the Columbine rampage left fifteen dead and more than two dozen injured, some of whom still have fragments of ammunition lodged deep in their bodies. The circumstances of these cases were similar, but the outcomes were different because one country successfully limits access to firearms among young people, and one does not. In Canada, citizens are subject to licensing and registration requirements and have limited access to handguns and certain assault weapons. In the United States, our gun laws are so riddled with loopholes a 15 year old can legally possess an assault rifle. I've often made the point that Canadian children, who watch the same movies and television programs, and play with the same toys and video games, are far safer than their American counterparts. The key difference between these children is not morals, religion or family, the difference is access to guns. How else can one explain that in 1997, the U.S. rate of death involving firearms was approximately 14 per 100,000, compared to Canada's rate of 4 per 100,000? In 1997, in my hometown of Detroit, there were 354 firearm homicides. In Windsor, the Canadian town that is across the river, there were only 4 firearm homicides for that same year. Accounting for population, Detroit's firearm homicide rate was 18 times higher than Windsor's. Congress does not have to pass Canadian-style gun control laws to reduce the number of American firearm casualties, but surely we need to reduce access to firearms among minors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the first Jewish congregation in the state of Michigan, Temple Beth El. The congregation, whose first services were held in 1850 by twelve families in Detroit, begins the celebration of its 150th anniversary this year with a series of special events. Beginning in May with a Musical Revue and concluding with a benefit in November, the events will bring together members of the congregation as well as thousands of others from throughout the metropolitan Detroit area. Founded at a time of unrest in our nation--when the debate over slavery was intensifying, the economy was booming, and the railroad was transforming American culture--Beth El began with German immigrants. Members of Beth El later joined in the Reform Judaism movement. By 1867, the congregation had replaced German with English as the language of instruction, and in 1873 Beth El was one of the charter members of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations which brought together the Reform synagogues of America to establish an American rabbinical seminary. Over the years, the congregation experienced steady growth, locating at several notable sites in Detroit. These include a temple that was constructed at Woodward and Eliot in 1903 (now the Bonstelle Theater which is owned and operated by Wayne State University) and a temple that was designed by the late Albert Kahn in 1922 and built at Woodward and Gladstone. Like these formidable architectural works that bear witness to the congregation's vision and contribution, Beth El's rabbis were pillars in the community and were instrumental in building and developing the Detroit Jewish community and the national institutions of the Reform movement. Rabbi Louis Grossman, Rabbi Leo Franklin, Rabbi B. Benedict Glazer, and Rabbi Richard Hertz are among those who are well-remembered for their significant leadership and prominent roles in helping to strengthen human relations and the cause of social justice. In 1973, the congregation opened its doors to its newest home in Bloomfield Hills. Today it has a membership of over 1600 families. Under the spiritual leadership of Rabbi Daniel Syme, Rabbi David Castigilone, Rabbi Sheila Goloboy and Cantor Stephen DuBov. Temple Beth El continues to play an important role in the metropolitan Detroit Jewish community, and it is recognized as one of the foremost Reform congregations in the United States. Mr. President, I would like to express my best wishes to Temple Beth El on the celebration of this milestone in their history as a major contributor to America's cultural strength and religious tradition. We all profit from the preservation and celebration of individual and religious freedom that Temple Beth El so well embodies. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating the congregation of Temple Beth El and Rabbi Daniel Syme for achieving 150 years as a ``home that welcomes all of Detroit's Jewish community'' and as a hallmark of spiritual development.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 85th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Each year we need to remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors we are blessed to have with us today. During the 8-year period from 1915 to 1923, approximately 1.5 million Armenians were killed and hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. April 24, 1915 serves as a marking point for the government- orchestrated carnage that took place under the Turkish Ottoman Empire. On this date, over 5,000 Armenians were systematically hunted down and killed in Constantinople. This number includes some 600 Armenian political and intellectual leaders who were taken to the interior of Turkey and systematically murdered. A Polish law professor named Raphael Lemkin was the first to call the atrocities committed upon the Armenian people during period of 1915 to 1923 the ``Armenian Genocide.'' Lemkin is also credited with coining the word ``genocide'' and making genocide a crime under international law. In 1939, Professor Lemkin escaped Poland during the Nazi invasion. Lemkin would ultimately lose 49 members of his family during the Holocaust. Until his death in 1959, Lemkin worked for the adoption of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, which was ratified by the United States in 1988. Through this individual, these dark periods of Jewish and Armenian history have been joined in the important cause of remembrance. Each year we vow that the incalculable horrors suffered by the Armenian people will not be in vain. That is surely the highest tribute we can pay to the Armenian victims and a way in which the horror and brutality of their deaths can be given redeeming meaning. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak in support of the remarks that were made earlier today by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. Senator Reid spoke eloquently about the need for Robert Ray, the independent counsel who assumed duties when Kenneth Starr resigned, to bring that investigation of the President to a close. The report earlier this week in the Washington Post that Mr. Ray is increasing his budget and his staff in contemplation of a possible indictment of the President after the President leaves office is chilling. Senator Reid is right to remind Mr. Ray that this is the United States and not a country such as the old Soviet Union where the abuse of the administration of law was used as a political weapon. Mr. Ray apparently justifies the continuation of his office and his consideration of an indictment of the President because of his commitment to the principle that no one is above the law. Certainly in this country that principle is fundamental. That was the theory behind establishing the independent counsel law in the first place. But that principle has two other equally important applications. One is that it means Mr. Ray himself is not above the law; and, two, while it is imperative that top Government officials be treated no better than private citizens, it is equally important that they should also be treated no worse. The independent counsel law requires that the independent counsel operate as a normal U.S. attorney and that the independent counsel comply with the policies and practices of the Department of Justice. We require this in the law because we do not want our top Government officials to be treated worse than a private citizen. Yes, we want to make sure our top Government officials do not get preferential treatment, but equally important, we do not want them to be treated unfairly either. Mr. Ray projects he is going to spend an additional $3.5 million in the next 6 months sifting through the evidence to determine whether or not he should indict the President for perjury in a civil case. Do any of us think that a U.S. attorney would spend 2 years and tens of millions of dollars investigating a possible perjury charge in a civil suit to begin with? Does anyone think a U.S. attorney would then ask for or receive six new attorneys, additional investigators and contractors, and an additional $3.5 million of taxpayers' money on top of the 40 staff people and above the $52 million that the office had already spent to investigate? The facts in the Lewinsky case have been sliced and diced and parsed and sifted through over and over again. They have been brutally revealed and thoroughly reviewed detail by detail. If Mr. Ray is not to be above the law himself, and if he is to abide by the principle he claims to hold dear, then he should do what a U.S. attorney would do in a case like this involving a private citizen-- bring it to a close. The purpose of the independent counsel law is to fairly investigate top Government officials so they are treated no better and no worse than a private citizen. It is, instead, being used to pillory. Nineteen months ago, Mr. Ray's predecessor, Kenneth Starr--surely a dogged independent counsel--represented to Congress that he was going to end the investigation ``soon.'' That was Mr. Starr's word, ``soon.'' Mr. Starr represented the following to the House of Representatives on September 11, 1998: All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion. This Office will soon make final decisions about what steps to take, if any, with respect to the other information it has gathered. Those were Mr. Starr's words 19 months ago when he made the representation to the Congress of the United States and the people of the United States that his office would soon make final decisions about what steps to take, if any. Mr. Ray's statement, as reported in the Washington Post, that this is still an open investigation and that he wants six new attorneys and $3.5 million more belies Mr. Starr's formal representation to the Congress and to the people. In commenting on Mr. Ray's latest statements, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Maureen Dowd noted that even Javert, the driven policeman in the book ``Les Miserables,'' who was singularly focused on capturing Jean Valjean ``jumped into the Seine at some point.'' I am not urging Mr. Ray to jump into the Potomac. I am saying--and I am confident that this is the opinion of the majority of the people in our country--that Mr. Ray needs to bring this investigation to a close and to do it now. The Lewinsky matter is over. The Paula Jones case is over. They were traumatic times for the country. The public has suffered. The President has been punished. It is time to move on. To extend this investigation with new attorneys and more money and more time is to punish the country. The country doesn't deserve it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that today's editorial from the New York Times entitled ``Reining in Robert Ray'' and today's op-ed piece from the Washington Post by Richard Cohen entitled ``Independent Counsel Overkill'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one week from today, we will memorialize the worst school shooting tragedy in our nation's history. The very mention of Columbine High School strikes a nerve with the American public. It reminds us of a horrendous scene of children, screaming and running from their assailants, while SWAT-teams descended on to their otherwise calm neighborhood. On April 20, this year the nation will remember, but for the students of Columbine, those few hours of April 20, 1999 are replayed over and over again every day in their minds. The survivors of Columbine revisit the massacre daily. They are reminded of that day by the fragments of ammunition in their bodies, or the scars cut deep in to their skin. When they see trenchcoats, they shudder, when they hear or smell fireworks, they get flashbacks. At such young ages, they have endured unimaginable physical and emotional pain. They have been poked and prodded by nurses, physicians, surgeons, physical, occupational and recreational therapists, and clinical psychologists. Some of them have found peace, others are still angry and frightened. A few can not tell their stories but many can tell them over and over again. For Columbine-survivor Valeen Schnurr, ``The nights are always the worst.'' Valeen is in college now, but Columbine is still very much with her. She writes, ``Inevitably, I find my thoughts drifting into nightmares, terrifying images of the library at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. The sound of students screaming as explosives and gunshots echo through the school; the burning pain of the bullets penetrating my body; the sound of my own voice professing my faith in God; seeing my hands fill with my own blood; and my friend Lauren Townsend lying lifeless beside me as I try to wake her.'' ``In the mornings when I look in the mirror, the scars I see on my arms and upper body always remind me that it's not just a nightmare, but the memory of a real event that will stay with me for the rest of my life. The scars are a part of me now, but they help me to remember that I've been blessed with a second chance at life.'' Another survivor, Kelsey Bane, talks about how she felt on her first day back at Columbine. ``On August 16, 1999, a new school year began. Only this year, I wasn't full of excitement. Instead, I was full of emotions I can't describe, because I was headed back to my school-- Columbine High--for the first time since April 20. I was scared out of my mind, but I knew that whatever I did that day would determine the way I would live the rest of my life. So I went to school; I faced my fears and my nightmares from the past four months and got ready to begin a new school year.'' Over the last year, ``[it] has gotten harder, as I expected it would. Sometimes I can't remember what used to occupy my thoughts, because now my mind is overwhelmed by these horrific experiences. Our lives will never be the same--and I don't think I will ever fully accept that.'' Nicole Nowlen, who was a relatively new student when the tragedy occurred, wrote ``nine pieces of buckshot hit me; four exited and five are still inside. When school started at Chatfield High [in May], I wasn't physically ready, so I finished my sophomore year with a tutor and went back to Columbine in August.'' ``It's been like this roller-coaster ride ever since. October and November got too crazy. First they arrested a kid [from Columbine] for making threats to finish the job. Then there was the six-month anniversary, and Mrs. Hochhalter [the mother of Anne Marie Hochhalter who was badly injured] killed herself. In all my classes, the kids never stopped talking about the shooting. It was depressing, so I decided to be home schooled. ``I started seeing a counselor in November . . . Things are better now, so I'm not going anymore. I may go again, but for now I'm at a good point.'' ``What helped me the most was Gerda Weissman Klein. She's a 75-year- old Holocaust survivor who came to speak at our school in January. She's really the only one who understands what happened to all of us.'' For the students of Columbine, every day is a struggle, every day takes another act of courage. There is nothing we can do in Congress to change that, but there is something we can do to protect other students from the nightmares, the anger, and the pain, as told by these students. Congress owes it to Columbine to try to end school shootings and reduce access to guns among young people. As of this one-year anniversary, Congress has failed to do so. Columbine victim Valeen Schnurr wrote, ``People on the outside don't realize how horrible it can actually be. We're the ones who can get everyone motivated and involved in making changes.'' I only hope Valeen is right. Her story should motivate Congress to strengthen our laws and save the lives of America's children. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, S. 2323. Stock options have traditionally been distributed only to highly salaried executives, used as an incentive to promote hard work on behalf of the company. As a company's bottom line improves due in part to the executive's efforts, the value of the company's stock increases, eventually rewarding the executive when he or she ultimately exercises the option and later sells the stock. I have long maintained that stock options ought be provided to all types of employee--whether hourly or salaried, management or clerica--and not just the top brass. That is why I introduced the Ending the Double Standards for Stock Options Act last Congress, which would have encouraged corporations to adopt plans in which a minimum of 50% of all options would go to non-management employees. After all, a company's success depends on the efforts of more than just its executives. I am hopeful that the Worker Economic Opportunity Act will encourage the growth of broad-based employee stock option plans in corporate America. The Act excludes stock options from overtime pay calculations for hourly employees. Current law also excludes benefits like discretionary bonuses, employer-provided health insurance, and retirement benefits from overtime pay rates. But current law doesn't address stock options. Last year, the Department of Labor indicated that, without action by Congress, companies would likely have to include the value of stock options when figuring an hourly employee's overtime pay rate. Corporate America has argued that the administrative and financial burdens associated with such inclusion, given a huge number of different employees having different amounts of options with different exercise dates and strike prices, outweigh the benefits of having a broad-based stock option plan. This legislation is not inconsistent with my proposal to require the reporting of stock options as an expense on a company's financial statements, a key part of the Ending the Double Standards for Stock Options Act. Therefore, I support the Worker Economic Opportunity Act to remove a potential barrier to workers' participation in the prosperous American economy they helped create.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend of mine who is also a friend to the working men and women of Michigan, Edgar A. Scribner. Ed recently retired from his position as President of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO. Ed Scribner began his working career with the Detroit Free Press in 1950, a career which was interrupted from 1952-1954 when he served his country in Korea with the United States Army. He has always been an active supporter of the rights of workers, and was elected Vice President of Teamster Local Union #372 in 1962. He also served his local as Trustee and President, and was selected for additional leadership positions with Michigan Teamsters Joint Council #43. In 1988, he was first elected President of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL- CIO, a position he has held until this year. Ed's contribution to community life has truly known no bounds. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of numerous charities and took a leadership role on behalf of United Community Services, metro Detroit's Torch Drive agency. In 1992, duty called Ed in a new direction when he was elected to the Board of Governors of Wayne State University, helping one of the nation's leading urban research universities find new ways to serve metropolitan Detroit. Through it all, as a labor leader, a humanitarian, and an education leader, Ed's calling card has been his sincerity. Those who know him have come to appreciate the genuine affection he holds for people. While he's never been reluctant to take a stand concerning the big issues of his day, Ed has never forgotten that in the end it's all about people and making their lives better. Caring about people has been a way of life for Ed Scribner, not just a job. So I have no doubt that even in his retirement, Ed will continue to serve his community in many ways. I am sure that his children, and especially his grandchildren, will keep him at least as busy as his commitments to the many non-profit and educational institutions with which he is currently involved. And I also know that the men and women of the AFL-CIO can count on Ed to continue to stand with them in their ongoing efforts on behalf of the working people of our nation. Mr. President, I know my colleagues will join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to Ed Scribner, President of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO, on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the budget resolution which the majority has presented to the Senate. In my judgement, this budget represents the wrong priorities. It places too much reliance on risky estimates about the Federal surplus over the next five years and provides for an unwise tax cut in lieu of greater reduction in the national debt and emphasis on protecting Social Security and Medicare as well as investments in the future of young Americans through education. For the past several months we have heard a familiar refrain--that the budget of the Federal Government will be in surplus over the next ten years. In fact, all throughout the first session of this Congress, the American people were told over and over again that, after years of running huge deficits, the Federal budget was about to start running enormous surpluses--tens, or even hundreds, of billions of dollars per year. While these were only projections, they seem constantly to improve, painting a very rosy scenario of America's fiscal future--that is until Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bills. Shortly after passage, the Congressional Budget Office, in its End of Session Summary, projected a $17 billion on-budget deficit for this year--meaning $17 billion of the Social Security surplus would be used--the result of the tens of billions of dollars in so-called ``emergency'' spending. In the intervening months, the CBO has revised its forecasts and now projects a $26 billion surplus for the current fiscal year, assuming no supplemental appropriations and no downturn in the economy. But we won't really know whether we have a surplus or a deficit for fiscal year 2000 until it ends in October. By the same token, we won't really know for sure whether we'll have a 10-year surplus or deficit until fiscal year 2010 draws to a close. With that in mind, I want to share a reality check on the projected ten year budget surplus and on the tax cuts proposed by the Senate Budget Committee majority and by Governor George W. Bush. In January of this year, the Congressional Budget Office released three surplus estimates, each based on a different assumption about the level of discretionary spending over the next ten years. These estimates were updated by the CBO on March 9th. The largest non-Social Security surplus estimate, $1.95 trillion, assumes that Congress will spend decreasing amounts for discretionary spending through fiscal year 2002, as required by the existing budget caps created in law and that discretionary spending will then increase at the rate of inflation. But Congress basically ignored these caps for the fiscal year 2000 budget passed back in November. Almost nobody believes it is realistic to assume that they will be adhered to for the next two years. The second surplus estimate, $1.89 trillion, assumes that we freeze discretionary spending for the next ten years at the fiscal year 2000 level. Freezing spending at this year's level for the next ten years means that we can't maintain Federal services at their current levels because we'd be ignoring the effect of inflation. So we'd be cutting federal services from their current level for ten years in a row. Over ten years this amounts to an $835 billion cut in current Federal services or 12%. That's a totally unrealistic assumption on which to project a surplus. Just look at the last ten years--an era supposedly characterized by fiscal restraint: Non-defense discretionary spending grew at a nominal annual average rate of almost 5%--that's 2% above inflation. The last three years, during which the budget caps have supposedly been in effect, total discretionary spending has outpaced inflation by 1.2%. The third CBO surplus estimate, $893 billion, is by far the most realistic--and indeed it too may be optimistic. This estimate assumes that discretionary spending will keep pace with inflation for the next ten years. If spending follows that path and if the economy performs reasonably well, the surplus, exclusive of Social Security revenues, could amount to $171 billion over the next five years and $893 billion over the next ten years. I emphasize the words ``if'' and ``could.'' This surplus estimate is just that--an estimate, far from certain, that depends upon several assumptions about things like economic growth rates, interest rates, and discretionary spending. If any of these assumptions is off, even by just a little, the surplus could shrink considerably. Obviously, Congress can't legislate economic growth or interest rates. But, Congress can and does have responsibility for discretionary spending, taxes, managing the National Debt and the continued strength of programs like Medicare and Social Security. So, we must carefully analyze and try to project faithfully and fairly what happens to the surplus when we look at our promises and our responsibilities to the American people over the next ten years: our responsibility to help provide seniors with access to the prescription drugs they need to live, our responsibility to our children to pay down the publicly held National Debt, our responsibility to protect Medicare, and our responsibility to stimulate the research and development of new technologies necessary to continue to strengthen the economy in the new millennium. Both parties seem to agree that the rising cost of prescription drugs makes some type of prescription drug plan for Medicare beneficiaries a necessity. The President's plan would have no deductible and pay half of all beneficiaries' prescription drug costs up to $5,000 when fully phased in by 2009. If you subtract the plan's ten year cost of $98 billion from the $893 billion surplus estimate of the CBO, the surplus shrinks to $795 billion. The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is estimated to encounter problems beginning in 2010, when expenditures start to exceed income. The difference will be made up by using the interest income on securities held by the Trust Fund. Beginning in 2015, the Trust Fund will have to start drawing down principal to meet its obligations. And by 2023, the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be insolvent--with principal depleted and income able to meet only 80% of its obligations. In any case, the Concord Coalition estimates that the entire Medicare program will suffer a huge cash deficit on the order of over $250 billion over the next ten years, unless substantial changes are made and/or dollars infused into it. The President's plan calls for both and he would provide $299 billion to extend Medicare's solvency beyond 2030. When these dollars are allocated to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, they are not paid out immediately to beneficiaries. And since current law requires that these dollars be invested in government securities, this allocation would also reduce the publicly held National Debt. So, if you subtract $299 billion from the surplus for protecting Medicare which also helps pay down the Debt, the surplus shrinks to $496 billion over the next ten years. Given those other demands on the budget surplus, the President proposes tax cuts targeted toward low and moderate income Americans: increasing the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, education incentives, health care incentives, encouraging charitable contributions. If we subtract the net cost of these tax cuts, $256 billion, the surplus shrinks to $240 billion. If we ignored these priorities and did nothing with the surplus, under current law, it would automatically go toward debt reduction. With the exception of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, each dollar of the surplus that gets allocated to one of these important domestic priorities cannot go toward reducing the publicly held National Debt and that costs money because of the interest that must be paid. While the exact amount of interest varies depending on how the surplus is allocated, the Office of Management and Budget estimates this cost to be $64 billion. When we subtract this amount, the surplus shrinks to $176 billion. At this point, if the economy keeps up and projections are accurate, we'll still have a surplus of $176 billion over ten years. But all this math still doesn't take several things into account--things like a 3.2% average annual increase in the rate of discretionary spending--which was the annual average discretionary spending increase from FY97-FY00. If we continued at that historic pace, that would decrease the surplus by another $107 billion. If we don't assume that increase, given the budget committee action increasing defense spending, domestic discretionary spending for programs like Head Start, COPS, the Superfund, and hiring new teachers would have to be cut very substantially. And what of the tax cuts that the Senate or the House have already passed? Just one of these bills, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, contains tax cuts that would decrease the surplus by another $103 billion over ten years. Also, over the next 10 years, up to 21 different tax provisions, such as the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, will need to be renewed by Congress or they will expire. Congress has routinely renewed these credits. This will cost another $100 billion over ten years. Finally, if Congress decides to provide relief to farmers suffering from droughts and other disasters, as well as low prices, and to healthcare providers reeling from prior-year Medicare cuts, that could cost another $60 billion over ten years. And the list goes on. So, if we take into account certain important responsibilities over the next ten years, the surplus could easily turn into a deficit. That is the sobering reality of the situation. Some have suggested that Congress' first priority in reaction to budget surpluses should be to cut taxes. Governor George W. Bush, has proposed such a plan. Governor Bush proposes to cut taxes by roughly $483 billion over five years and $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. Even before factoring in the interest costs that result from this tax cut, the surplus would evaporate completely under Governor Bush's plan. Bad enough, his proposed tax cut leaves nothing to protect Medicare or extend its solvency by one day. Nothing to pay down the publicly held National Debt. In fact, it would add hundreds of billions to the National Debt and cut into the Social Security surplus. The reality of the situation illustrated here is that, without spending a dime on any of America's other priorities, the Bush tax cut converts an $893 billion surplus into an $572 billion deficit, and that means cutting into the Social Security surplus by $572 billion. Sinking back into the deficit ditch is the wrong direction for the budget and for the economy. We ought not to go in that direction. The Budget Resolution now before the Senate goes in that same direction. The Budget Resolution contains $150 to $200 billion in tax cuts over five years. The Budget Resolution passed by House Republicans contains tax cuts which eat up 98% of CBO's $171 billion, five-year non-social security surplus. These tax cuts not only come at the expense of other domestic priorities, they endanger the on-budget surplus and threaten the Social Security surplus. To pay for this tax cut, Senate and House Republicans continue in the misguided direction of the Bush plan by proposing enormous cuts in domestic Federal services while giving lip service to priorities such as a Medicare prescription drug benefit. First, both the Senate and House Republican Budget Resolutions would cut many domestic Federal services by almost 10 percent over the next five years. Second, the Resolutions create a ``reserve fund'' of $40 billion that, in the Senate's version, could go toward a prescription drug benefit if a Medicare reform bill is introduced. I emphasize the words ``could'' and ``if.'' Unlike the tax provisions in the Budget Resolution--that direct the Finance Committee to produce legislation cutting taxes--there are no enforceable instructions compelling anyone in Congress to do anything when it comes to prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. So the reality of Republican Budget is clearly a double standard: Serious action when it comes to a large tax cut, and loose language when it comes to prescription drugs. What is particularly disturbing is that the House and Senate Republican budgets evade realistic scrutiny by producing only a 5-year plan. Last year, faced with the same situation, the Senate considered a ten year plan. This year, the majority hides the explosive effect of their tax breaks over the next ten years that could plunge the federal budget back into large deficits. So, before we become too enchanted by the promise of huge surpluses in the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, before anyone writes any checks on surplus dollars, or enacts large tax cuts which are also difficult to reverse, I wanted to offer this reality check to show how, if Congress acts unwisely and with too little caution, the surplus boom could too easily turn into a deficit bust. Mr. President, the Budget Resolution the Senate considers today in my judgement takes such a risk. It is premised on the shaky foundation of surplus projections reliant upon unrealistically large cuts in spending for domestic programs like Head Start, programs to reduce class size in schools, clean up superfund pollution sites, and to hire new police officers. It does too little to protect Medicare and Social Security and to provide for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. And, it contains an unwise tax cut while hiding the exploding costs of that cut in future years. While a few changes which I have supported have been made over the past few days, such as increasing Pell grants and devoting more dollars to veterans' health care, I cannot support this Budget Resolution. This budget emphaisizes the wrong priorities and runs the risk of heading back toward reliance on the Social Security surplus to keep us out of the deficit ditch.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to state for the record why I voted against Senator Bond's amendment yesterday. The Bond amendment states that ``It is the sense of the Senate that the budget levels in this resolution assume that no Federal funds may be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide any grant or other assistance to construct, operate, or otherwise benefit a smoke shop or other tobacco outlet.'' The broad language of the amendment could easily be interpreted to mean that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should not use federal funds to support any economic development project, including housing for senior citizens, which has a retail outlet that sells, among other things, cigarettes. To cut off federal support for such projects that have a retail outlet that sells cigarettes as one of hundreds of other items, is too extreme. Instead, I support nondiscriminatory legislation that targets establishments whose primary business is the sale of tobacco products.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Burton H. Boyum, who is being honored on April 13th for his significant contributions to the preservation of the history of mining in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Burton H. Boyum was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1919 and moved to the Upper Peninsula in 1941. He quickly learned to love the beauty of the U.P. and the outstanding character of its people. He worked as a mining engineer for one of the U.P.'s largest employers at the time, Cleveland Cliffs International, from his arrival in the U.P. until his retirement in 1984. Mr. Boyum's experience with Cleveland Cliffs inspired him to teach the public about the geology, mineralogy and mining heritage of his adopted home. Mr. Boyum has contributed greatly to the preservation of the U.P.'s mining heritage throughout the years. In 1961, he was a founding Board Member of the Quincy Mine Hoist Association and was named its first Secretary. He served as President of the Board of the Association from 1973 until 1998, when he was named the first Chairman of the Board. Mr. Boyum has also served on the Advisory Commission of the Keweenaw National Historical Park, served as President of the Historical Society of Michigan, helped gain State approval for the Michigan Iron Industry Museum, and helped to create the Marquette Range Iron Mining Heritage Theme Park. He has written two books about the mining experience in the U.P., Saga of Iron Mining in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and The Mather Mine, and has also produced two videos about the history of U.P. mining. As important as the mining experience has been to the U.P., Mr. Boyum also embraced the U.P.'s love for the outdoors and outdoor sports. He successfully campaigned for the creation of the National Ski Hall of Fame in Ishpeming, Michigan, and served as its first President and Curator. He also helped to organize the Great Lakes Olympic Training Center Association and served as its President for 10 years. Mr. President, the history of Michigan's Upper Peninsula is deeply intertwined with the iron and copper mining industries. Burton H. Boyum has served the people of the U.P. well by dedicating himself to the preservation of its mining heritage. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him well and in thanking him for his efforts.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not sure who controls time in opposition. I do not oppose it, but I would like 30 seconds. I ask unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to vote for the amendment--I believe most Members will--but we want to make sure we do not create an inequity, an unfairness in the process. We will be paying different amounts of money to the same people, same rank, and we may actually be giving the extra money to the wrong people. Senator McCain's amendment, it seems to me, has exactly the right purpose: to get rid of food stamps going to some members. But we have to do it right. Senator Warner is going to be holding hearings in our committee on this whole food stamp situation. We, hopefully, can accomplish this goal in a way which does not create a discriminatory situation. I have one last fact. We all should be glad to know the number of our service members on food stamps has gone down, from 19,400 in 1991 to 11,900 in 1995, to 6,300 in 1999. The number of people on food stamps has been going down dramatically, not only numerically but also as a percentage of the force.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the first time in the United States, a gun manufacturer has agreed to make major changes to the design, distribution and marketing of its products. In a historic settlement reached by Smith & Wesson, the Administration, and cities and states around the country, Smith & Wesson will make sweeping changes to its business practices. Under the terms of the agreement, several cities and counties will drop lawsuits filed against Smith & Wesson in exchange for reforms designed to make guns safer and limit access to them by unauthorized users. Specifically, Smith & Wesson agreed to increased safety standards, such as the inclusion of external locking devices on all of its guns immediately, and internal safety locks on its pistols within two years; more stringent performance standards for its handguns, including rigorous drop tests; and a commitment to include ``smart gun'' technology in its newly designed handguns within three years. In addition, Smith & Wesson agreed to revamp the way it distributes and sells firearms. Smith & Wesson will conduct business transactions only with authorized distributors and dealers who abide by a code of conduct. The distributor or dealer must agree in writing to perform and complete a background check for all sales, including those at gun shows; impose limits on the bulk purchase of guns; implement a security plan to prevent firearm and ammunition theft; require juveniles to be accompanied by a parent or guardian where guns and ammo are stored or sold. Other parts of the voluntary agreement include a trust fund for a public service campaign about the risk of firearms in the home and lessons for proper home storage. Also, Smith & Wesson made assurances that their guns will not be marketed to appeal to children or criminals and will not be advertised in the vicinity of schools, high crime zones, or public housing. Finally, with this agreement, a firearm manufacturer has agreed to the basic demands of the American people: to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. I hope other gun manufacturers will follow their lead and work to reduce the level of gun violence in America.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Mott Community College and Mr. Peter Levine, MPH on being selected as the 1999 Corporate and Individual Health Advocates of the Year by the American Lung Association of the Michigan-Genesee Valley Region. Mott Community College and Mr. Levine are being honored by the Lung Association for their efforts to encourage, promote and raise awareness about improving the health of the Genesee Valley Region. Mott Community College (MCC) is a dynamic community institution serving the needs of all the residents of Genesee County. This commitment to community service is manifested in the school's efforts to promote public health on campus and in the community. MCC has implemented a pro-active lung health program that not only eliminates smoking in all campus buildings, but also assists smokers in their efforts to ``kick the habit''. MCC provides counseling for employees who desire to quit smoking, and its health insurance providers offer educational programs to support employees who desire to quit smoking. In addition, MCC has become a leader in community service. The college encourages faculty and staff to serve on local boards for community-based, non-profit organizations, and the school allows employees to fulfill these commitments on company time, if necessary. The school also serves as a gathering place for community health special events. The annual MCC Health Fair brings community and health officials together, and Tipper Gore chaired a recent mental health town meeting on campus. MCC students and faculty in the health sciences share their expertise by assisting school groups, churches and the Genesee County Public Health Department with a variety of community health initiatives. Peter Levine has served his community, state, and country in countless ways. He serves as the Executive Director of the Genesee County Medical Society. The Society is a progressive organization which seeks to be pro-patient and pro-physician. During Mr. Levine's tenure, the Medical Society has grown from a small association employing a few people into a set of four corporations serving the medical and general community with approximately 80 employees. The Society focuses on medical, social, bioethics, environmental health and resource allocation issues. Mr. Levine has been on the faculty of Michigan State University since 1985, where he is currently an Associate Adjunct Professor in the College of Human Medicine. He has published extensively about health issues in scholarly and popular journals. In 1992, Health Care Weekly Review cited him as one of the eight most influential health care policy individuals or organizations in the State of Michigan. Peter Levine was a founding Board Member and volunteer for the Genesee County Free Medical Clinic. He also serves on the board of numerous civic and professional organizations. Currently he is the Chair of the Michigan Council of County Medical Society Executives. Mr. President, I have mentioned only a small sampling of the many ways in which Charles Steward Mott Community College and Mr. Peter Levine have used their creativity, hard work and unflagging commitment to public service to make this community and our nation a better place to live. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring Mott Community College and Peter Levine for service on behalf of the Genesee Valley Region and State of Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Abraham in sponsoring this resolution which commends and recognizes the extraordinary successes of the Michigan State Spartans. As we speak today, about 150,000 people are lining the parade route in Lansing, MI, after a rally at our capitol, to welcome home and cheer on our heroes. College athletics is at best about more than winning. It is about hard work and determination and relying on teammates to overcome adversity. The Michigan State Spartans surely displayed all of those characteristics in their season-long drive to become the national champions. Coming off a loss to Duke in the Final Four last year, many had picked MSU as this year's favorite to win the NCAA Tournament. However, when star point guard and former Big Ten Player of the Year Mateen Cleaves was sidelined with a stress fracture on his right foot early in the season, the hopes of a championship season seemed lost. But the Spartans never gave up. The rest of the team pulled together to play the first 13 games of the season without their emotional leader. When Mateen returned to the basketball team, MSU went on to win their third straight Big Ten Championship, clinching the top seed in the Midwest region of the NCAA Tournament. During the NCAA tournament the Spartans faced many challenges, winning come from behind victories against Utah, Syracuse, and Iowa State to reach the Final Four for the second straight year. After beating conference rival Wisconsin in the semifinals, the stage was set for Michigan State to take home their first National Championship title since Magic Johnson led the Spartans to victory over Indiana State in 1979. Monday night the young Florida Gators played a great game, but their depth and energy didn't quite match the experience and determination of the Spartans. Mateen Cleaves led the team in scoring until five minutes into the second half when he was sent to the locker room with a sprained ankle. While many teams would have crumbled under the pressure of playing for the National Championship without their star player and floor leader, the Spartans came together like they have done all season long and their lead over the Gators grew. When the injured Cleaves came back onto the floor, limping up and down the court, his presence provided the emotional spark that the team needed to win by a final score of 89 to 76. In today's sports world where, where many talented young players leave college early or don't go at all, and coaches skip from team to team it is refreshing to see the kind of dedication that these student athletes and their coach have shown. ``The Flintstones''--seniors Mateen Cleaves and Morris Peterson, and junior Charlie Bell, have become heroes and role models to those from their hometown of Flint. Senior A.J. Granger's often unsung heroics have proved how much these Spartans value the success of the team over individual accolades. The full roster of that extraordinary team is as follows: Al Anagonye, Jason Andreas, Adam Ballinger, Charlie Bell, Mike Chappell, Steve Cherry, Mateen Cleaves, A.J. Granger, Lorenzo Guess, Andre Hutson, Matt Ishbia, Morris Peterson, Jason Richardson, Brandon Smith, David Thomas, and Adam Wolfe. Coach Tom Izzo has spent his entire career in Michigan, including 12 years as an assistant under former Michigan State head coach, Jud Heathcote. They have set a wonderful example of what can happen when you are willing to combine patience, hard work, and dedication. Those names belong in the Congressional Record. They are all being honored here for their teamwork, which produced a national champion. Coach Tom Izzo has spent his entire career in Michigan, including 12 years as an assistant under former Michigan State head coach, Jud Heathcote. He and his assistants have set an extraordinary example of what can happen when you are willing to combine patience, hard work, and dedication. Indeed, the whole Michigan State family deserves credit because they truly represent, on and off the court, what we frequently talk about--family values. They believe in family, both at home and on the court. They act as a family and they play as a family. We owe them our congratulations and our thanks for that as well. There is going to be a long list of bands in that parade going down Michigan Avenue in a few minutes. Many of the high school teams from around the State will be there. They have been invited to march. One of the groups, though, that I want to make special mention of in closing is the band from Tom Izzo's hometown of Iron Mountain. Tom Izzo is an ``Upper,'' as we say; he comes from the UP. His heart has always been close to Michigan and Michigan State. He is originally from the UP. It is a special treat for him and for all of us that one of the bands marching down Michigan Avenue today will be indeed from his hometown of Iron Mountain. We also pay tribute to the Florida Gators. It was an extraordinary game. They deserve an awful lot of credit for what they did to bring themselves to the finals. I am sure that in the future their heroics will again prove that they will go far in these NCAA tournaments. Hopefully, they will again get to the finals and, hopefully, again lose to a Michigan team. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Americans are fed up with the intolerable levels of gun violence in this country. This violence has seeped into our homes, schools, churches and community centers. In cities and counties across the nation, people are calling for common-sense gun legislation. Mayor John Logie, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, dedicated his State of the City speech to the issue of gun violence and its traumatic effect on children. He asks us to take a new and different approach to the problem, an approach focused on protecting our children. Mayor Logie suggests that there is ``no greater cause behind which we can all join, than saving the lives of our young people.'' Major Logie is right: gun violence can be reduced. I hope this Congress can endorse his message and work to protect our children from senseless firearm injury and death. I ask that the text of Mayor Logie's speech be printed in the Record. The article follows: State of the City We are at the start of a new millennium, or at least the start of a new year, and thanks to the support of a majority of the voters in each of the 80 of the City's 100 precincts, for me the start of a new 4-year term in office, until December 31, 2003. Even though that sounds like a long time off, if it is anything like the last 8 years, it will disappear all too quickly. Last year in this speech I was able to talk about the Common Good, about our accomplishments, and about the positive aspects of our future. Sometimes, however, a series of events occur, which make me feel that living in a community like this one, if it can be aroused and focused, it could provide leadership to this region, this State, perhaps even the country. So here is the topic I want to talk about today. On December 7th in Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, a 13-year- old seventh grader named Seth Trickey emptied a 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol, resulting in four of his classmates being shot. Surrounded by 14 spent cartridges, he kept trying to pull the trigger on the empty handgun until the police arrived. In Springfield, Oregon, 15-year-old Kip Kinkel gave a report in science class about how to make a bomb. Then in literature class he read from his journal about thinking about killings. No one did anything until he later shot and killed his parents and two classmates. At Columbine High School, Eric Harris and Dylon Klebold, used a saw-off shotgun, a rifle, and a semi-automatic pistol, to slaughter 13 students and teachers. One of their classmates, Patrick Ireland, recently featured in Life magazine's Year in Pictures, was shot twice in the head and once in the foot. One bullet passed through the left hemisphere of his brain, which controls language, complex thinking, and the right side of the body, causing massive damage. It's still in his brain--too risky to remove, and he's considered lucky, because he's alive. Recently a home- made videotape was released in which Eric and Dylon talked about how they hoped one day Hollywood directors would fight for the right to tell their story, but they said they couldn't decide whether Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino should direct the film. Their callousness is unbelievable! They talk openly on the tape about concocting their plan under the noses of unsuspecting parents and friends. They mention the time a clerk from Green Mountain Guns called Harris's home. His father answered. ``The clips are in,'' the clerk said. Wayne Harris told the clerk he hadn't ordered any clips for a gun, but never asked the clerk if he had the right phone number. Barry Loukaitis, then 14, walked into his Moses Lake, Washington Junior High School, wearing a black trenchcoat and carrying a high-powered rifle. The coat also concealed two fully stocked ammunition belts around his chest and a hip holster carrying two low-caliber handguns, both owned by his parents. Loukaitis burst into his Algebra classroom and began spraying bullets. He shot first at a popular boy who had taunted him, and then two other students and a teacher. When it was over, using a line from a novel, he said, ``Sure beats Algebra, doesn't it?''. All but one of the students died. In Bethel, Alaska, a 16-year-old used a 12-gauge shotgun to kill his principal and a classmate. In Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; and Conyors, Georgia, this terrifying scene keeps reoccurring with startling similarity and frightening regularity. And of course, here in Michigan we have Nathaniel Abraham, a convicted murderer at age 11, and, in West Michigan, maybe just missed something of this nature when Justin Walters pleaded no contest to ethnic intimidation charges after he and another boy in Holland were found to have allegedly compiled a hit list that targeted minority students at their school. In 1996, handguns were used to murder only 2 people in New Zealand, only 15 in Japan, only 30 in Great Britain, and only 106 in our neighbor Canada. In that same year 9,390 handgun murders occurred in this country. In fact, that is only part of the approximately 33,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States--roughly the same number of Americans as were killed in the Korean War. Choose any 2 years in the 90's, and guns in the United States killed more people than in all the long years of the Vietnam War. Each week, more than 600 people in the United States die from gun-related incidents. Many of them are children. In 1997, half of the handgun homicides were kids under 19. Every day in America, 12 young people die of gunshot wounds. Even accidental shooting deaths take a hideous toll: The rate for accidental gun deaths for children under 15 in the United States is 9 times higher than the rate for the other 25 industrial nations combined. Before we can talk about creating solutions, I want to suggest that we have to begin by taking a new and different approach. The typical rhetoric around the issue of so-called gun control almost always ends up with the people on the Right declaring that the Second Amendment to the Constitution's language about ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed'' is an automatic license to own any firearm you want, protected from governmental intrusion. And the people on the Left answer by saying that what we have to do is outlaw guns entirely. But the reality is that there are some 240 million guns in this country, well over 90 million of them handguns, which are not just going to go away. The missing link to much more effective regulation has to be keyed to our concern for our children. Has anyone missed the point of this speech so far? That while we continue to talk about this issue, to debate this issue, to fight over gun ownership rights, children are dying everywhere in America, including our own community. Whatever the Constitutional rights of adults are, we have always had a Constitutional basis to be more restrictive and more protective about our children. As Mayor and a practicing trial lawyer for more than 30 years, I suggest that this is a point of entry into better solutions. By focusing on protecting our children, we can avoid most, if not all of the most divisive legal issues. But first we have to slow down the Michigan Legislature. Fifty-six weapons bills were introduced in Lansing in 1999. Let me describe only two of them. One dealt with carrying concealed weapons, or ``CCW.'' Here in Kent County, as in most of the densely populated counties in Michigan, our concealed weapons permit board is very conservative. Few permits are issued, and then only for a very real need. Other, more rural counties are sometimes more liberal in their approach. Somehow this difference between urban and rural counties has offended certain members of the Legislature because of its ``lack of uniformity.'' So a bill was rushed into both chambers to strip away that local discretion and make Michigan a ``shall issue'' state, which means that unless the applicant was nuts or a convicted felon, he gets a permit. Overnight, virtually any person wanting to carry a concealed weapon would be able to do so. Not one big-city mayor or police chief in Michigan supported this terrible idea. But if it hadn't been for Eric Harris and Dylon Klebold in Littleton, Colorado, the law would have been changed. Even this bill's most ardent supporters didn't have the stomach to pass this legislation after the slaughter at Columbine. But, be assured it will resurface and be tried again. Then there is HB 4379, which would not only block lawsuits against the gun industry by state and local governments, but also private organizations and individuals; and more importantly to where I believe we have to go, it would explicitly block state government from requiring safety locks or warning labels on guns. This proposal had 58 sponsors in the House of Representatives, more than enough to assure passage in that chamber, unless they start receiving different messages from all of us. We must say ``no'' to more pro-gun manufacturer legislation. Things are not any better in Washington. Last fall the majority Whip in the House of Representatives, Congressman Tom Delay, was quoted as saying, ``This House is a pro-gun House.'' Last May the U.S. Senate passed a juvenile justice bill and added an amendment requiring trigger-locking devices to protect children. This was also the bill that by one vote, 51-50 with Vice President Gore casting the deciding vote, the Senate agreed to regulate sales at gun shows. Well, that piece of legislation is now languishing in the House-Senate Conference Committee, where no one shows the political will necessary to move it forward. Somehow we have to inspire these people to do the right thing. We must begin to demand a regulatory and statutory framework that protects our children--even from themselves. Here are some of the issues that we can and should begin demanding receive serious consideration: (1) Require background checks for all guns purchased at gun shows. All dealers should be federally licensed, requiring them to conduct a background check prior to selling a firearm. There are now more than 4,000 annual gun shows dedicated primarily to the sale or exchange of firearms. Our friends at The Grand Rapids Press supported this requirement in an editorial on September 29, 1999. (2) Require trigger locks. Conservative Republican Governor Christine Todd Whitman, on October 13, 1999, made New Jersey the fourth state in the nation to prohibit the sale of any new handgun without a trigger lock. In 1998 New York City passed a local ordinance making sellers responsible for issuing trigger locks. When that didn't get the job done, on October 14, 1999, the city passed an ordinance punishing gun owners with a year in jail if they fail to use trigger locks. Chicago, San Francisco, and the State of Massachusetts all have similar requirements. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last July, 94% of women and 81% of men support requiring that guns have safety triggers. If we can implement this rule without new state legislation, I will ask the City Commission to do so. If not, I will lobby for the necessary state law change to do so. (3) California, in addition to outlawing ``Saturday Night Specials,'' has passed a law limiting sales of handguns to one per month. Republican Governor Bill Owens of Colorado has endorsed raising the legal age to buy a gun from 18 to 21. To keep firearms out of children's reach, he wants a law requiring safe storage. Finally, he would make ``straw purchases,'' the guys that buy in bulk for resale to anyone including particularly, teenagers, illegal. (4) The domestic production of large-capacity ammunition clips, ones that carry more than 10 rounds, has already been banned. But a loophole as large as the cargo hold of a freighter still exists. The importation of these large- capacity ammo clips needs to be outlawed as well. (5) Seventeen states have passed Child Access Prevention laws, so-called CAP laws. Florida, governed by Jeb Bush, was the first state to pass such a law and has seen unintentional shooting deaths drop by more than 50% in the first year. These laws would make a gun owner responsible if a child gains access to an improperly stored firearm and uses it to kill or injure others. Almost 60% of students in grades 6 through 12 have indicated that they know where to get a gun, and a third of them said that they could get one within an hour. The unlocked, loaded gun in the home should become a thing of the past. (6) And finally, technology is almost available for so- called ``smart guns''--firearms equipped with an electronic device to prevent anyone but the owner from firing it. When you look at the billions of dollars that we spend annually to fight and attempt to conquer diseases, would it not be justified to fund and thereby advance the timetable for research on this smart gun technology to bring it to the marketplace sooner rather than later? Whether or not we are in the 21st Century, we have certainly turned a numerical milestone. This year begins, for the first time, with a ``2.'' In my recent Third Inaugural Address, I had an opportunity to look back at the 19th Century's Last Will and Testament as it appeared in The Grand Rapids Herald, on December 31, 1900. The Editor was Arthur VandenBurg, who would later become our U.S. Senator. The Will bequeathed inventions, books and reading, an honest ballot box, the need for equal civil rights, care for the disadvantaged, and concerns about armaments. I made the observation that it appeared that 100 years later we were still struggling with many of the same issues. Gun violence being perpetrated by children, or at them, was nowhere to be found in the years 1899 or 1900. It is a product of the age we now live in--perhaps just the last 25 years. I hope that what we have unfortunately found to be true about the social problems which are still with us from 100 years ago, would not be true for this issue 100 years from now. You know, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. We can, we should, and we must change our strategy toward guns and children to achieve a better outcome. I can think of no greater cause behind which we all can join, than saving the lives of our young people. I have attended the funerals for two of my brother Jim's three children--one dead of natural causes, the other from a car accident. Burying children, having their lives abruptly cut off, is truly a tragedy. Over the last 10 years, our community has grown in stature in this West Michigan region, in this State, and even beyond. Protecting our children is an issue that can and should transcend party politics and conservative and liberal ideologies. I am confident that we can make a difference. Let us commit to doing so.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the proposed constitutional amendment. The American flag is the premier icon of our national freedom. It is an irreplaceable reminder of liberty, sacrifice, and patriotism. To deliberately desecrate or burn a flag is an insult to anyone who has fought to defend it. But to deliberately weaken the First Amendment rights of all Americans cannot be the answer to those who attack a symbol of freedom. We love our flag for obvious reasons, and true Americans treat it with respect. A person who destroys such an important symbol should face the scorn of all decent women and men. But we should not allow the misguided actions of a few individuals to jeopardize the rights and freedoms of all Americans. The Supreme Court has ruled that such an attack on the flag is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. If we pass this amendment, and the States ratify it, we alter the Bill of Rights for the first time in our nation's history. For more than 210 years, the Bill of Rights--which protects our most basic freedoms--has served us well. Although I love the flag, I also love the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. When we pledge allegiance to the flag, in the same breath, we pledge allegiance to the Republic for which it stands. Mr. President, Senator John Glenn, a true American hero, reflected these concerns in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. He said: [I]t would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental freedoms themselves. Let the flag fully represent all the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not a partial, watered-down version that alters its protections. The flag is the nation's most powerful and emotional symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. And it is our most revered symbol. But is it a symbol. It symbolizes the freedoms we have in this country, but it is not the freedoms themselves. General Colin Powell has said: I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. We should not alter the basic charter of our liberties just to address the few incidences of flag burning in this country. Despite the attention it receives, flag burning is relatively infrequent. According to one expert, there have been only 200 reported incidences of flag burning in the history of our nation. That amounts to less than one case per year. The Congressional Research Service has listed 43 flag incidents between January 1995 and January 1999. Even if this constitutional amendment were adopted, and the physical desecration of the flag were prohibited, it would not necessarily yield the intended results: the preservation of our glorious symbol. As the Port Huron Times Herald suggested on June 26, 1999, flag desecration may not necessarily be flag burning, but the trivialization of the flag: How glorifying is it to see the Stars and Stripes emblazoned on paper napkins destined to be smeared with ketchup and barbecue sauce and tossed in a trash can? How respectful is it to wrap ourselves in Old Glory beach towels? Sip our coffee from red, white and blue mugs? Start our car from a flag-emblazoned key chain? We shouldn't worry about people burning the flag. It just doesn't happen. We should worry about trivializing a glorious symbol into something as meaningless as a paper napkin. I oppose the proposed constitutional amendment because it would amend our Bill of Rights for the first time, but I do support a statutory prohibition on flag desecration. The McConnell-Conrad-Dorgan statutory approach is preferable because it provides protection of the flag through enactment of a statute, and subsequently, does not weaken our First Amendment freedoms. If we love the flag, we will not only preserve the sanctity of the cloth, but the freedoms for which it stands. No matter how abhorrent the action of flag burning may be, I see great danger in amending the Bill of Rights and curtailing freedoms enumerated in the Constitution, the very documents that give our flag its meaning.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Calvin College Knights on their recent athletic success. On Saturday, March 18, 2000, Calvin College's Men Basketball team completed their ``storybook'' season by winning the Division III Men's National Championship. The National Championship is the Men's second since 1992 and the third for Calvin College in the last two years. The Calvin Women's Cross Country team captured the National Title in 1998 and 1999. With only two seniors on their roster, the young Knights opened the season by winning the Lee Pfund Classic in Wheaton, Illinois. After the tournament, Calvin began play in the competitive Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the nation's oldest athletic conference, where they compiled a perfect 17-0 record. Included in this total were two thrilling victories over arch-rival Hope College. For the uninitiated, this intrastate rivalry has the ability to make or break either school's season. Sports Illustrated has noted that the rivalry between these ``two Division III schools in Western Michigan, is the equal of Duke-North Carolina, Georgetown-Syracuse or any of the big Division I rivalries,'' and Tim Russert announced the outcome on ``Meet the Press'' this year. The drama and success of the regular season served as a prelude to the NCAA Tournament. Calvin's first tournament game was an overtime cliff-hanger against Franklin in which Nate Burgess, of Grand Rapids, MI, tipped in the winning basket with 3.6 seconds left. This basket allowed Calvin to advance to the ``Sweet 16'' for the first time since 1993. After two lopsided victories, Calvin relied on the last minute of heroics of Bryan Foltice, of Grandville, MI, who hit a running jumper as time expired to propel Calvin into the National Championship game. The Championship game against the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire featured a torrid first half, clutch plays in the waning minutes and a well-balanced attack in which five Knights scored in double figures. With this 79-74 victory, Calvin concluded the season with a 22-game winning streak, and became only the sixth Division III school to have won two national championships. The season became even sweeter when Jeremy Veenstra, of Kalamazoo, MI, and Aaron Winkle, of Lake City, MI, were named to the Final Four All-Tournament team. In addition, Winkle was both an All-American and Academic All-American. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting Calvin College for their extraordinary individual achievements and their National Championship. Go Knights! Mr. President, I ask that the team roster be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week we remember another tragedy in America's history, the 2-year anniversary of the school shooting in Jonesboro, AR. Two years ago this Friday, the Nation watched two boys, ages 11 and 13, open fire on their classmates, killing four young people and a teacher. At the time the school shooting in Jonesboro had the distinction of being one of the Nation's bloodiest. We were stunned that two boys so young had so much anger in them, anger that was made deadly by access to more than a half a dozen guns and 3,000 rounds of ammunition. In 1998, the pastor of a church attended by one of the four children shot to death in Jonesboro said: Nothing touches us more than when our children are hurt. There's never been anything you could possibly compare this to. He didn't know that over the next 2 years there would be school shootings in Georgia, Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and recently in my own home State of Michigan. Sadly, these tragedies have not convinced Congress to act to try to take guns out of the hands of children. In the aftermath of Columbine, almost a year ago, the Senate passed a juvenile justice bill with moderate gun safety amendments designed to reduce juvenile access to guns. That bill has been stuck in conference committee for months, and legislative proposals to prevent juvenile access to guns has been stymied by this Congress. Americans cannot understand why Congress has done nothing to prevent the tide of shootings in our schools and public places. Americans do not believe the National Rifle Association's rhetoric--the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. They are absolutely and utterly appalled by the most recent statement of the NRA that the President is ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.'' I believe the NRA owes an apology to the American people for those incendiary comments by Wayne LaPierre, its executive vice president. His words represent the lowest level of personal attack that has been hurled against any President that I can remember. They cross the line of acceptable political debate. There should be an outpouring of revulsion, not just from persons who disagree with policies supported by the NRA but from the NRA's own members and from those who agree with its positions. Americans may be divided on the need to pass gun-related legislation but are surely united when it comes to protecting the lives of our fellow citizens and our children. I yield the floor.