Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Senator Mikulski in introducing the National Digital Empowerment Act, which seeks to close the gap between those who have technology available to them and those who do not. I commend Senator Mikulski for her commitment to connect every school and community to the Information Superhighway. The legislation we are introducing will help to achieve this goal. It will enable students and teachers in all communities to have access to computers, as well as the training that is necessary to use this technology effectively. The widening digital divide falls heaviest on those who can least afford to be left behind. Recent studies show that the Digital divide for the poorest Americans has grown by 29 percent since 1997, and that over 50 percent of schools lack the infrastructure needed to support new technology. In addition, approximately 4 out of 10 teachers report that they have had no training in using the Internet; and a mere 10 percent of new teachers reported that they felt prepared to use technology in their classrooms, while only 13 percent of all public schools reported that technology-related training for teachers was mandated by the school, district, or teacher certification agencies. This legislation will provide the necessary tools to reverse this trend. It will substantially increase funding for teacher training in technology, including the creation of Teacher Technology Preparation Academies--teachers who are trained by the Academies would be encouraged to return to their schools and act as technology instructors for other teachers; increase funding for school technology; extend the current enhanced deduction for computer technology which is currently due to expire in 2001; require HUD to establish e-Villages in all HUD housing programs; authorize and increase funding for the creation of Community Technology Centers and e-corps within the AmeriCorps; create a one stop shop clearinghouse of public and private technology efforts within the U.S. Department of Education to be headed by an Assistant Secretary for Technology Education. In addition, the legislation directs the Secretary to implement an Internet-based, one-to-one pilot project that specifically targets the educational needs of K-12 students in low-income school districts, including hardware, software and ongoing support and professional development; and improve the e- Rate program. After two funding cycles the total e-Rate funding that went to our nation's schools and libraries was $3.6 billion nationally, including $137.15 million for Michigan. That is a good investment to help prepare our children and citizens for the information age of the 21st century. But it is still not sufficient to provide all qualified schools and libraries with the e-Rate discounts they have requested. This legislation would improve the Universal Service Fund by making the e- Rate application process simpler, and would increase the current cap of $2.25 billion and expand eligibility to include structured after school programs, Head Start centers and programs receiving federal job training funds. The e-Rate has proven itself to be a successful and popular program and its time to make it available to everyone who needs it. I am especially pleased to be a part of this legislative effort because it supports some model initiatives that I have established in my home state of Michigan, to create ways in which teachers can become more computer literate and able to integrate technology into the curriculum and to bring technology into every classroom. About 2 years ago, I convened an education technology summit that brought together over 400 business leaders, school administrators, school board members, foundation representatives, deans of Michigan's colleges of education and others to identify ways in which Michigan could excel in the area of Education technology. What I learned was that one of the biggest obstacles to technologically up-do-date classrooms is the lack of training of our teachers in the use of technology. If teachers don't understand how to integrate computers, the Internet, and other technology into the instructional program, students won't get full advantage of these innovations, no matter how much hardware and wiring have been installed. Despite impressive achievements in the utilization of education technology in a few localities, Michigan as a whole was below the national average in every measure of the use of technology in our schools. It ranked 44 in teacher training in the use of technology; and 10 percent of teachers reported that they had less than 9 hours of technology training. In addition, Michigan ranked 32 among the states in the ratio of students per computer. I have subsequently hosted a number of working sessions which have resulted in a specific plan of action to advance education technology in Michigan. Some key elements of the plan of action include the formation of a consortium that will establish the nation's highest standards for training new teachers to use technology in the classroom. Beginning with the 1999-2000 academic year, the Consortium for Outstanding Achievement in Teaching with Technology {COATT} will award certificates of recognition to new teachers who have demonstrated an exceptional ability to use information technology as a teaching tool. COATT membership includes an impressive slate of higher educational institutions from Michigan: Albion College, Andrews University, Eastern Michigan University, Ferris State University, Lake Superior State University, Michigan State University, Oakland University, University of Detroit-Mercy, University of Michigan, University of Michigan- Dearborn, Wayne State University and Western Michigan University. Neither the education nor the certificate is mandatory. However, new teachers with certificates will have an advantage in the job market and school districts will benefit by knowing which applicants are qualified in using technology effectively in their instruction. The letter of agreement signed by each COATT member in committing their institution to provide the resources to achieve the success of the COATT initiative which is included at the end of my remarks. Michigan is already recognized as a leader in producing new teachers and if we set our minds to it, I'm convinced we can be the best in the nation when it comes to teaching teachers how to integrate technology in the classroom. Another key element of my plan of action to advance Michigan's standing in education technology is the establishment of the Teach for Tomorrow Project, TFT, an online delivery system for educational technology training and credentialing of in-service teachers. By using technology to teach the technology, lessons can be accessed statewide and at time and location which are convenient to the learners. An added bonus, which results in an expansion of the use of technology in the classroom, is that teachers who complete TFT teach other teachers what they have learned. Central Michigan University has approved the use of TFT materials as a professional development course eligible for 3 graduate credit hours when done in conjunction with local onsite training. The legislation before us, the National Digital Empowerment Act, will speed the closing of the digital divide not only in my state of Michigan, but nationwide. Time is of the essence. We must act responsibly and we must act now! Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the COATT member agreement signed by higher education institutions in Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a week ago, Veronica McQueen didn't have the slightest idea she would be the latest parent thrust into a tragic spotlight. Now, the mother of Kayla Rolland, the six-year-old girl who was shot and killed in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, is very much the focus of public attention and empathy. Kayla's mother and parents across the country are heartsick. Parents too often fear sending their children to school in the morning. They are joining the fight against gun violence and demanding that Congress make this country safer for their own children and the nation's children. As Kayla's mother said, ``I just don't want to see another parent have to bury another baby over this, over something that is preventable, something that is very, very preventable.'' I would like to share some of the thoughts and feelings of mothers across the country. They have written to the Million Mom March, an organization fighting for commonsense gun legislation, asking Congress to listen to their pleas for safety. I urge Congress to stop listening to the NRA and heed the words of parents: pass legislation before more children's voices are silenced by gunshots. Victoria of Pittsburgh, PA writes: ``It is 4 a.m. and my daughter had that terrifying dream again--the one about the man with the gun--`he'd already shot you and Dad, Mom--and now he's coming for me.' Was my daughter affected by Columbine? I was!'' Cindy of Bridgewater, NJ: ``Our children look to their parents for protection. What are we suppose to tell them when we can't? Who are we suppose to go to for help? It is the job of EVERY citizen in this country and EVERY government official to make sure our children are safe. Stricter gun laws are only meant to do ONE thing. . . . PROTECT OUR CHILDREN! I am asking the government to please step up to the plate and protect them . . . after all aren't some of you parents too?'' Julie of Hamilton, VA: ``I want to protect my two remaining children and grandchild from the horror of gun violence. I was not able to protect my precious son Jesse, who was a victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head on June 11, 1999.'' Leslie of Philadelphia, PA: ``On February 2 ,2000, my son, Songha Thomas Willis, was fatally shot in a holdup while visiting me in Philadelphia . . . Needless to say, this has been a very difficult time for me and my family over the past few weeks. We are still in shock, and as a family of law enforcers, we are doubly affected by this event . . . I support not only changing gun control laws but changing the hearts of those who are against our efforts, because the heart is the fountainhead of all things moral.'' Deborah of Walled Lake, MI: ``. . . A few months ago someone I love lost a child to violence and a hand gun. His son who had just turned 17 a few weeks before was shot sitting on his own front porch. Someone thought he was someone else and walked up to him and ended his life his dreams his families dreams for him in an instant. He is gone and the world is a sadder place because of that loss. We have to stop this senseless killing the loss of our children. Our best chance of making Washington listen to us is if our voices are one. I will be with those who march in Washington on Mothers day. We have to stop the killing of our children.'' B. Adams of Littleton, CO: ``My daughter survived Columbine, but looking into the faces of the parents that night who had not found their children was the hardest thing I've ever done. Although guns were not the only equation, how can we not do what we can to prevent this from happening again?! How can gun commerce be more important than the lives and safety of our children? How can we face them and not say that we have done all we can to protect them?'' Eileen of Palm Beach Gardens, FL: ``My 19 yr. old son Michael was murdered on March 21, 1996 along with his best friend. Both were shot in the head execution style by two teens who had been involved in an attempted murder 13 hours before using a hand gun. These last four years have been a living hell and if I can stop just one mother from living the nightmare I have had to live, then I will be happy.'' Suzy of Raleigh, NC: ``Last April, my growing lanky 10 yr. old sat on my lap the day after Columbine and asked me--`Why?' I had no answer. I simply held him and cried with him. I still have no answer. But I don't ever want him to ask me why I didn't do something. I will link hands with all of you on Mothers Day. Its time to take back our precious babies' childhoods.'' Lori of Troy, MI: ``I am scared and outraged for our children. In Michigan there is an effort to allow concealed weapons. I have had enough of the NRA and the pro gun lobby. They say the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. I hope we can change it.'' Angelique of Imperial Beach, CA: ``A close friend of mine once found a little boy that had been accidentally shot in the head by a friends' dads' gun. To this day she will never in a million years forget what it felt like to have that little boy tug and pull at her shirt during his last few moments alive. Had there been a trigger-lock on that firearm his life could've been saved . . . As well as so many others . . .''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from California for her leadership. It is critically important that this issue be raised at this time.

Mr. LEVIN. Three minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for raising the question of the proliferation of guns and gun violence in our schools as we debate education on the Senate floor. We should not be debating education without addressing the question of the gun violence which strikes so many of our schools. It has now been almost a year since the deadly shooting at Columbine. The images of Columbine's teenagers clinging for life and screaming in terror are forever printed in our minds. Not many of us could forget the horror of those scenes as they unfolded before us on national television. Yet somehow it seems that Congress has forgotten the unforgettable. Now, in yet another school shooting, the tragic, senseless death of another child--this time in my home State of Michigan --has reminded us of the terror of gun violence and the toll it takes on young people. According to a press report, the shooting stunned even gun control advocates immersed in the details of school violence. If a 6-year-old can get a gun, they said, the problem is worse than anyone thought. The first grade shooting that occurred this week in Mount Morris Township near Flint, MI, is surely shocking because of the nature of the circumstances: An alleged 6-year-old gunman living in a house with easy accessibility to guns and little comprehension of the consequences of his actions. No one can really any longer claim shock or surprise that another young life was lost to gun violence. No one can any longer claim shock or surprise that another one of our children did not make it home from school. We have known, long before Columbine, that gun violence claims the lives of 12 children, on average, each day. We know gun violence results in injury and death, destroys families, and causes lasting psychological and emotional harm. Buell Elementary's counselors will now try to cope with the trauma that comes when schoolchildren shoot schoolchildren. Too many other districts now know that violence and the fear of violence is not only devastating to the children and the families involved, it can also infect the learning environment. We cannot allow ourselves to become desensitized to the tragedies of gun violence. As a Detroit Free Press writer put it: [At Buell] the first-grade classroom, so vibrant with the piping voices of children early Tuesday morning, had been commandeered by police detectives, searching for the meaning behind the unthinkable. Congress must pass gun safety legislation before more children's voices are silenced by the sounds of gunfire and sirens.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the so-called Affordable Education Act, S. 1134, because it is not a wise use of Federal dollars. It does not address our national education priorities. And, it will not help those who are most in need. I would like to take a moment to talk about exactly who will benefit from this IRA expansion for elementary and secondary education expenses. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 70 percent of the proposed IRA tax benefit would go to the top 20 percent of all taxpayers. These higher income families, many of whom already send their children to private schools, would gain most of the benefits. Families unable to save, including most families earning less than $55,000 a year, would receive very little, if any benefit at all. Additionally, this IRA tax benefit would be minimal. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the average annual benefit for families with children attending private schools would be limited to approximately $37; and for families with children in public schools, the average annual benefit would be $7. Mr. President, 90 percent of the children in America attend public schools. Instead of investing in proven initiatives to raise academic standards for all children, the bill before the Senate emphasizes the wrong priority. It fails to reduce class size, enhance teacher training in technology, modernize school buildings, expand after-school programs or improve special education. According to the National Council on Education Statistics, nearly 53 million children are currently enrolled in public schools and the number is expected to increase to 54.3 million by 2008. It is estimated that approximately 2,400 new school facilities will be needed to accommodate this increase. As is well documented, the condition of school facilities and the student-teacher ratio are linked to student achievement. Therefore, it is clear where our federal education resources should be directed. We must not lose sight of the fact that school modernization is a critical component to the success of our school children. It simply must be one of our national educational priorities. Local school communities cannot shoulder all of the costs associated with school building modernization and technology infrastructure improvements. Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that has opened up limitless possibilities in the classroom. In order for students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st century, they must learn how to use new technologies. But all too often, teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their instruction without being given the training to do so. Too often students are left to teach teachers in the rapidly expanding area of technology. It is not enough for a teacher to be able to email, they must use this education technology to advance their curriculum and guide their students along the information highway. Just two years ago, it was reported that a mere 10 percent of new teachers reported that they felt prepared to use technology in their classrooms, while only 13 percent of all public schools reported that technology- related training for teachers was mandated by the school, district, or teacher certification agencies. Currently, only 18 states require pre- service technology training. I am disappointed that the legislation before us does not adequately address the large-scale needs of our teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. In my own state of Michigan I often talk with teachers when I visit schools and I find them straight-forward about what they don't know and eager to develop new technology skills. In fact, the only reason that we are not further behind in this area is that teachers have used their own time and often their own money to learn the technology skills to better teach their courses. Almost 2 years ago, I brought together about 400 leaders in education, business, philanthropy and government for a Michigan summit meeting focusing on the need for a greater commitment to professional development in technology. My message at that gathering and my message now is that we've got to match our teacher's commitment to our children with our own commitment to their professional development in the use of technology in classroom instruction. I am currently involved with several initiatives that are an attempt to accomplish this. Mr. President, for all these reasons, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am saddened to come to the floor this afternoon to speak about a tragedy that occurred yesterday in my home State of Michigan. Yesterday morning, in room No. 6 at Buell Elementary School in Mount Morris Township near Flint, a first-grade student allegedly shot and killed his young classmate, Kayla Rolland. We don't yet know all the facts about how the first-grader gained access to the handgun or whether the shooting was accidental or intentional. We do know, however, that one girl lost her young life in this tragedy and the children at Buell Elementary are scared and confused and their parents deeply concerned. Although grief counselors and social workers are at the elementary school now and will work their hardest to help these children understand and cope with the trauma, there is really no amount of counseling that can replace the innocence these children have lost. The class of 22 students who witnessed the shooting is looking for answers and so are most of the rest of us. How can we make sense of this tragedy and the apparent relative ease with which a 6-year-old brought a 32-caliber semiautomatic handgun to school? It is impossible to come to terms with this or any of the other shooting tragedies in this country that claim the lives of 12 children on the average each day. Yet always after a tragedy such as this one, we ask ourselves if it could have been prevented. The answer is a resounding yes. Congress can and must work to keep guns out of the hands of children. It has now been almost 1 year since the deadly shooting at Columbine and still Congress has done nothing to help prevent these school shootings. Lori Mizzi-Spillane, a Michigan coordinator of the Million Mom March, an organization advocating for stricter Federal firearms laws, asks in her words, ``What is it going to take now for people to wake up?'' What will it take for us to ``wake up'' and pass legislation requiring firearms to be sold or transferred with storage or safety devices? What will it take for us to ``wake up'' and pass child access prevention legislation which would require that adults store firearms safely and securely in places that are reasonably inaccessible to children? Together, both Houses must enact these and other commonsense gun safety reforms that will keep our young people alive. We should also note that the semiautomatic handgun that was reportedly used by the 6-year-old is a Saturday-night special, or junk gun, manufactured by one of the same companies that recently filed for bankruptcy protection to evade claims for damages caused by their product. Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to the Bankruptcy Reform Act to prevent gun manufacturers from tactically using bankruptcy laws to evade accountability. That amendment would have held those companies responsible if they produced unsafe products and distributed those products negligently. The amendment did not pass, and the gun industry continues to be the only industry explicitly exempted from Federal health and safety regulations. As a result, many of the guns manufactured today lack even the most basic kind of safety devices. We should repeal this privileged position of gun manufacturers and also require that all firearms are personalized or child-proofed so they cannot be fired by unauthorized users. I extend my thoughts and my prayers to Kayla's family, and I know I do on behalf of every Member of the Senate. No family should have to suffer what this family has suffered in the last 2 days and what they will continue to suffer as long as they live. We will work ever harder to reduce the toll of gun violence for all the children of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every February nationwide we celebrate African American History Month. We do so because in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, son of former slaves, proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving the history of the Negro and recognizing the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith and conviction--a people who rendered their achievements for the betterment and advancement of a Nation once lacking in humanity towards them. Throughout the Nation, we celebrate the many important contributions African Americans have made in all facets of American life. Lerone Bennett, editor, writer and lecturer recently reflected on the life and times of Dr. Woodson. In an article he wrote earlier this month for Johnson's Publications, Bennett tells us that one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African American history is the story of Woodson's struggle and rise from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement: At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history--Black history. Mr. President, in keeping with the spirit and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to two courageous women, claimed by my home state of Michigan, who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality. These are two women of different times who would change the course of history. Mr. President, Sojourner Truth, who helped lead our country out of the dark days of slavery, and Rosa Parks, whose dignified leadership sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the start of the Civil Rights movement are indelibly echoed in the chronicle of not only the history of this Nation, but are viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world. Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement, and a ground breaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan recently honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, Michigan on September 25, 1999. I commend Dr. Velma Laws-Clay who headed the Monument Steering Committee and Sculptor Tina Allen for making their dream, a true monument to Sojourner Truth, a reality. Mr. President, Sojourner Truth had an extraordinary life. She was born Isabella Baumfree in 1797, served as a slave under several different masters, and was eventually freed in 1828 when New York state outlawed slavery. She continued to live in New York and became strongly involved in religion. In 1843, Baumfree, in response to a command from God, changed her name to Sojourner Truth and dedicated her life to traveling and lecturing. She began her migration West in 1850, where she shared the stage with other abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass. In 1851, Sojourner Truth delivered her famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio. In the speech, Truth attacked both racism and sexism. Truth made her case for equality in plain-spoken English when she said, Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, cause Christ wasn't a woman? Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him. By the mid-1850s, Truth had settled in Battle Creek, Michigan. She continued to travel and speak out for equality. During the Civil War, Truth traveled throughout Michigan, gathering food and clothing for Negro volunteer regiments. Truth's travels during the war eventually led her to a meeting with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864, at which she presented her ideas on assisting freed slaves. Truth remained in Washington, D.C. for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. Due to bad health, Sojourner Truth returned to Battle Creek in 1875, and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today. Mr. President, on May 4, 1999 legislation was enacted which authorized the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. The Congressional Gold Medal was presented to Rosa Parks on June 15, 1999 during an elaborate ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. I was pleased to cosponsor this fitting tribute to Rosa Parks--the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all. Forty four years ago in Montgomery, Alabama the modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. My home state of Michigan proudly claims Rosa Parks as one of our own. Rosa Parks and her husband made the journey to Michigan in 1957. Unceasing threats on their lives and persistent harassment by phone prompted the move to Detroit where Rosa Parks's brother resided. Rosa Parks' arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott. Her stand on that December day in 1955 was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime of struggle for equality and justice. For instance, twelve years earlier, in 1943, Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's bus related segregation laws, which required African Americans to pay their fares at the front of the bus then get off of the bus and re- board from the rear of the bus. The driver of that bus was the same driver with whom Rosa Parks would have her confrontation 12 years later. The rest is history--the boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Mr. President, we have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. But we still have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle on Civil Rights and to human rights.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today in the Detroit Free Press, there is a story about a potential nightmare in Michigan. The article alleges that Kevin Olender, a felon convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon was preparing an attack on his co-workers in Farmington Hills. According to the article, Olender was able to evade background checks required by the Brady law, by purchasing a gun in parts. Allegedly, Olender was only one part away from finishing the construction of his firearm, and that part was expected within days. In the end, investigators prevented any shoot-out, but the article highlights another loophole in federal firearm law that gives felons access to firearms which would otherwise be forbidden. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole and the many others in our federal law. I ask that the Detroit Free Press article about this loophole be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Detroit Free Press, Feb. 23, 2000] Felon's Gun Charges Show Net Loophole--Police Say Suspect Was Able to Buy Parts On-line (By L.L. Brasier and Ruby L. Bailey) With a credit card and the Internet, Kevin Olender had everything he needed to find parts for an assault rifle. It was no problem, even for a felon. Four days after Christmas last year, Olender went shopping. He ordered a $199.95 parts package for a military-style rifle from Interordnance, an Internet gun dealer based in Monroe, N.C. He bought another parts package from the firm Feb. 4. Police and prosecutors say Olender, 40, of Wyandotte, was preparing for an assault on co-workers at Compuware in Farmington Hills. He only needed one more part, known as a receiver, to finish building a working gun. The part was on order, police say. But authorities raided his home last Friday and arrested him. ``He was ready to do it,'' Farmington Hills Police Chief William Dwyer said Tuesday. ``I think we saved a lot of lives.'' Dwyer said his investigators found evidence that Olender had located the receiver, a palm-sized part that holds pieces together and makes the gun fire, and expected it within days. Dwyer would not say how investigators determined that. A person with a felony background is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition. But there's a loophole in federal law. Though dealers cannot sell a gun without a background check, they can sell gun parts, weapons experts said. Ulich Wiegand, owner of Interordnance, said he did not check Olender's background when filling his order. ``No, of course not,'' he said. ``We are not required to because we weren't selling him a gun.'' Olender was convicted in 1996 in Detroit Recorder's Court of a felony, assault with a dangerous weapon, court records show. He received five years' probation. Wiegand said he sells many parts packages, but declined to say how many. ``You have to understand, we did not send him guns,'' Wiegand said. ``This is nothing but parts, and he could do nothing with them without a receiver.'' Wiegand said his company sells fully assembled weapons only to federally licensed firearm dealers. But Dwyer said Olender's easy access to gun components on the Internet points out the need for new laws. ``It is like the old West, only with no sheriff in town,'' Dwyer said. ``You've got sexual predators, violent people buying guns. We need to come up with some safeguards.'' Olender is being held in the Wayne County Jail on a charge of possessing a firearm as a felon, and using a firearm in a felony. Olender could face federal charges for possessing ammunition as a felon. Agents for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are investigating what charges may be filed, said Vera Fedorak, an agency spokeswoman. During Friday's raid, authorities recovered two disassembled rifles from Olender's basement, as well as a manual for assembling the guns. They also found hundreds of rounds of ammunition, including steel-nosed bullets designed to penetrate bullet-proof vests. Investigators found that he was missing receivers, also known as frames, used to hold the gun pieces in place. To purchase a receiver, Olender should have been subjected to a background check, by law. Dwyer and others would not comment further about the receiver. Without the receiver, what Olender had was like ``a car without a motor,'' said Victor Reid, co-owner of Midwest Ordnance Gun Shop in Royal Oak. A receiver would cost $300 to $400, he said. The part is regulated by the federal government, has a serial number, and cannot be sold without a license. ``They are virtually impossible to get illegally,'' said Reid, who said he does not sell gun kits at the store, or on the company's Web site. ``It's not an item that you can just go buy.'' The packages that Olender bought from the North Carolina firm consisted of gun parts from military weapons dating to the 1950s, and disassembled overseas. The packages are popular among collectors and sportsmen, who acquire the needed receivers through dealers, and reassemble the guns. Police said they are investigating where Olender got the ammunition. Concerns about guns and the Internet have prompted federal lawmakers to pursue legislation targeting Internet sales of guns. Hundreds of Internet sites advertise weapons for sale. Many are dealers who comply with federal laws. But individuals often don't, said Jim Kessler, policy director for U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Schumer has sponsored a bill that would make it illegal for anyone except licensed gun dealers to buy and sell guns over the Internet. The measure is pending. ``Nobody's watching,'' Kessler said. ``The Internet itself presents a giant loophole in gun laws.'' When searching for guns over the Internet, buyers can't legally make the purchase directly on-line, gun experts said. Buyers scan Web sites where guns are advertised, then contact a dealer and complete the purchase. The dealer must ship the weapon to another gun dealer, who is required to make sure that the buyer fills out the required forms and undergoes a background check. ``It's not like someone can put their credit card in a Web site and get a gun,'' said Trish Hylton, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. She said the Internet ``is like a classified ad. The person selling and the person purchasing have to abide by all the laws that are in place.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join our Chairman, Senator Warner, in congratulating and thanking Marie Fabrizio Dickinson on the occasion of her thirtieth anniversary on the staff of the Committee on Armed Services. This is a remarkable milestone for Marie. The Armed Services Committee and the Senate are very fortunate to continue to be the beneficiaries of her tremendous dedication and devotion to duty. In our Committee's history, no other staff member has ever served longer. But this tribute is about much more than the number of her years in service. A native Washingtonian, Marie was initially appointed to the Committee as a clerical assistant by Senator John Stennis in 1970. In 1986, she was named the Committee's Assistant Chief Clerk by Senator Barry Goldwater and in 1999 Senator Warner promoted her to Chief Clerk. Whether managing the myriad of details associated with military construction projects, editing the Committee's SALT II hearing transcripts, or administering the complexities of thousands of military and civilian nominations, Marie has consistently given her best to our Committee and performed with excellence. One of the true hallmarks of Marie Dickinson's service on the Committee has been her ability to achieve success by working with quiet yet steadfast determination. If you ever need a living reminder of the timeless virtue of letting one work's speak for itself, look no further than Marie Dickinson. Marie has earned the trust and respect of those around her not because of what she has said, but because of what she has been able to accomplish in her loyalty, unselfishness, and attention to detail. Those who know Marie know that throughout her career on the Armed Services Committee she has demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining the traditions of the Committee in general and in preserving the records of our Committee in particular. Many of us would certainly agree with these goals, but very few of us would be able to actually take the steps necessary day-in-and-day-out to safeguard the records that comprise the Committee's history. Marie's Herculean efforts to archive, research, compile and protect our Committee's record will insure that our Committee's important work is chronicled and documented for the historians of the future. Marie Dickinson has dedicated her entire professional career to the work of the Armed Services Committee. It is very fitting that we take time today, on this her thirtieth anniversary, to pay tribute to and thank her for the significant and lasting contributions she has made to our work on the Committee and to the United States Senate. I hope, as I know Senator Warner does, and all the other Committee Members and the staff do, that Marie will continue to serve with us for many more years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I had a number of concerns with this bill, as it was approved by the House. I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement on an amendment that addresses many of these concerns. The managers' amendment would make it clear that the application of sanctions under section 3 of the bill is discretionary, not mandatory. It would also urge the executive branch to provide notice to persons who may be subject to sanctions under this provision, giving them an opportunity to provide explanatory or exculpatory information before such sanctions are provided. I had planned on offering several amendments to this bill when it came to the floor, but because of the adoption of this amendment, I shall not do so. I would also like to clarify a few points with the chief Senate sponsors of the bill. First, the bill requires reporting of foreign persons when there is ``credible information'' indicating that the person transferred specified goods, services, or technologies to Iran. I understand that it is the intent of the sponsors that the President judge the credibility of information on the basis of all information available to him, including both information that supports and information that undermines the conclusion that a covered transfer may have taken places. In other words, ``credible information'' is information that would lead a reasonable person to conlcude--after consideration of all the available evidence--that there is a substantial possibility that a covered transfer took place. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. The second point that I would like to address is the use of the word ``timely'' in the managers' amendment. It is my understanding that the intent is that, whenever appropriate, the President provide notice to foreign persons, or to the government with primarily jurisdiction over such persons, in a manner that provides them a reasonable opportunity to provide explanatory or exculpatory information before sanctions are imposed. Do the lead sponsors agree with this view?

Mr. LEVIN. Finally, I would like to address section 6 of the bill, which requires a determination by the President that, among other things, the Government of Russia has demonstrated a sustained commitment to seek out and prevent the transfer to Iran of goods, services and technology that ``could'' make a material contribution to the development of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or of ballistic or cruise missile systems. It is my understanding that the use of the word ``could'' in this provision is not intended to go beyond other nonproliferation requirements or require the President to consider remote or absurdly hypothetical circumstances. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable person from my home state of Michigan, Most Reverend Moses B. Anderson, S.S.E. Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit. On February 17, 2000, Bishop Anderson was honored with the Mother Theresa Duchemin Maxis Award in recognition for his many years of dedication and service within the Archdiocese of Detroit. Serving as Michigan's first African American Catholic Bishop, Moses Anderson has ministered to the needs not only of the Catholic Community, but to the Community of Humankind, since his ordination in 1958. For the last 40 years, he has served the Catholic Church with integrity and dedication. In addition, he is the recipient of multiple honorary degrees, an enstooled Chief in Ghana, West Africa, and an internationally revered minister and scholar. Currently serving as pastor at the Church of the Precious Blood in Detroit, his homilies have the distinction of being based in songs portraying the loving relationship between God and humankind. For this reason, Anderson is known as a man of songs as well as an accomplished and beloved clergyman. Bishop Anderson's departure from his vicariate duties makes way for new beginnings in his life. I am confident that his future endeavors will be as successful and fulfilling as the previous ones. For certain, he will remain active in his many church and community activities, but will have more time to dedicate to his favorite hobbies--music, organic gardening, cooking, and being the ``good shepherd'' he is known to be. I am pleased to join his colleagues and friends in offering my thanks for all he has accomplished in making his community a better place. Mr. President, Bishop Moses B. Anderson can take pride in his long career of service and dedication to the Catholic Church. I know my colleagues join me in saluting Bishop Anderson's commitment to his community and religion, and in wishing him well in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, President Clinton sent to Congress his budget proposal for the 2001 fiscal year. Among his initiatives is a proposal to improve the enforcement of federal firearm laws. Specifically, the President requests more than $280 million to provide law enforcement agencies with tools they need to reduce gun crime. The proposal includes funds to: improve the speed and accuracy of Brady background checks by upgrading State and local criminal history records; hire 500 new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agents and inspectors; provide grants to hire 1,000 new federal, state and local gun prosecutors; implement a comprehensive crime gun tracing program; and support local anti-gun violence media campaigns. I believe this is an important initiative in the fight against gun violence, and I applaud the President's commitment to this issue. I hope that during this Session, Congress will support full funding for this aggressive gun enforcement initiative, and will act to close loopholes in our federal firearm laws that give young people and felons easy access to guns.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the most recent version of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000. It advances the process further, and it is essential that the promised and paid for disposal of nuclear waste from Michigan proceed. There are a number of provisions in this bill which are problematic and while I will vote to advance this legislation, I will review the final product that comes before the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No objection on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think we are ready to yield back whatever time we have, if the other side is ready to yield back whatever time they have. I withdraw that. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my amendment very simply provides that gun manufacturers or distributors cannot evade responsibility for damages which are caused by their reckless or negligent conduct or their fraudulent conduct by reorganizing in bankruptcy. The question has been raised, why single out one industry? The answer is, there are 18 exemptions in the bankruptcy law. We have singled out 18 different instances where public policy is such that we have decided people should not be able to discharge their debts. For instance, students who take out student loans cannot discharge their obligations in bankruptcy. So where public policy indicates we should say something is not dischargeable, we have done that on 18 different occasions. This amendment is strongly supported by the League of Cities and by the Conference of Mayors. About 30 cities have initiated lawsuits, cities from all parts of the country: New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and San Francisco being among them. This is a response to a tactic which is being used by a number of gun manufacturers that are being sued for reckless or negligent or fraudulent conduct, saying: No, we are going to hold you accountable. You cannot reorganize yourself in bankruptcy out of accountability and responsibility for the damages that have been caused by your own reckless or negligent conduct. I hope this amendment will pass. It has the support of the Violence Policy Center which points out that the gun industry is the only industry that is exempt from Federal health and safety regulations. There is no other industry explicitly exempt except for firearms manufacturers. Insisting they not be able to escape liability for their own reckless or negligent conduct is certainly in keeping with the exemption they sought from Federal health and safety regulations since judicial liability is the only way in which they can be held accountable.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is the pending matter?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. This amendment, which is cosponsored by a number of our colleagues, provides that gun manufacturers and distributors cannot evade responsibility for damages that are caused by their reckless or negligent conduct or their fraudulent conduct by seeking reorganization in bankruptcy court. It is that straightforward. We already have about 18 provisions in the bankruptcy law based on public policy which provide that certain kinds of debts are not dischargeable. For instance, we have in the law a provision that says if you drive while drunk and you injure somebody, you cannot discharge that obligation by going bankrupt. Senator Danforth made an eloquent statement on this floor arguing for justification for that particular exception, that nondischargeability, when he said: Today there exists an unconscionable loophole in the bankruptcy statute which makes it possible for drunk drivers who have injured, killed or caused property damage to others to escape civil liability for their actions by having their judgment debt discharged in Federal bankruptcy court. This loophole affords opportunities for scandalous abuse of the judicial process. Following Senator Danforth's and others' pleas that we make liability resulting from drunken driving nondischargeable in bankruptcy, this Congress added another nondischargeable obligation in our bankruptcy law. We have about 18 of those provisions. We have a provision that says if you have an obligation to the Government for a student loan, you are not going to be able to get rid of that by going bankrupt. We have a provision in the bankruptcy law which says if you have an obligation to a co-op or to a condo for a fee you owe to them, under certain circumstances that is not going to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. And what we are saying now in this amendment is that where a gun manufacturer or a distributor, through his own reckless, negligent, or fraudulent conduct causes damages to individuals or our communities, they should not be able to reorganize in bankruptcy court and get rid of that debt. This is the public policy purpose beyond this particular provision. It has the support of many organizations such as Handgun Control, which is Sarah Brady's group, has written in support of this amendment, saying: Gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers should not be able to evade these legitimate claims for damages. In 1996, Lorcin Engineering Company, one of the chief manufacturers of Saturday night specials, or junk guns, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Other gun manufacturers such as Davis Industries and Sundance Industries have followed Lorcin's lead and have filed for bankruptcy to avoid liability. We must not allow other companies to take advantage of this bankruptcy system. We have an unusual provision in the law that exempts the gun industry from safety and health regulation. It is the only industry that is explicitly exempt from health and safety regulations and from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. No agency has safety oversight over manufacturers who have produced unsafe firearms, and so litigation serves as the only mechanism that can hold the industry responsible. What this amendment says is that where there is damage caused by fraud or reckless or negligent conduct of a manufacturer or distributor, that manufacturer or distributor should not be able to reorganize itself out of accountability, away from responsibility by going to bankruptcy court. The public policy purpose behind this amendment is a powerful one, indeed. In addition to Sarah Brady's organization, which I have mentioned, the National League of Cities supports this amendment. They have written a letter dated November 16: Like debts incurred by drunk driving, Congress must send a clear and convincing message that it will not permit debtors to escape debts incurred by improper conduct. It is crucial that the Federal Government do all that it can to help local law enforcement effectively address gun violence with commonsense legislation that curtails access to firearms, including altering the bankruptcy code. Too many of these companies have already said they are going to try to reorganize to escape liability. It is a tactic they are using. That is not what the bankruptcy law is all about. The bankruptcy law is not intended to provide that kind of a haven for companies that have engaged in reckless conduct or negligent conduct, to evade responsibility for their obligations. Now, the reasons the National League of Cities has taken this position are many, but one of them is that 30 cities and counties have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers or distributors alleging reckless, negligent, or fraudulent conduct on the part of those manufacturers or distributors. New Orleans, LA; Chicago, IL; Miami, FL; Atlanta, GA; Cleveland and Cincinnati, OH; Detroit, MI; San Francisco, CA; St. Louis, MO; and other cities and communities have filed lawsuits alleging reckless conduct, negligent conduct, or fraudulent conduct on the part of a gun manufacturer or distributor. They very strongly support this amendment, as does the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Violence Policy Center. The Violence Policy Center issued a statement saying that this amendment is necessary to ensure that firearm manufacturers, which are exempt from Federal health and safety regulation--and I emphasize the only group that is exempt from Federal health and safety regulation explicitly is the firearms manufacturers. They have gotten that exemption. Yet when it comes to trying to close a loophole in the bankruptcy law, which they are using tactically to evade responsibility, they claim they are being singled out. Indeed, they have singled themselves out in gaining exemption from Federal health and safety regulation, and the only way in which they can be held accountable is through the civil justice system. That is why the Violence Policy Center has written a letter of support, indicating that lack of health and safety regulation means the civil justice system is the only mechanism available to regulate the conduct of gun manufacturers. Mr. President, this amendment is in response to a tactic that has now been declared by a number of gun manufacturers, that when faced with allegations or judgments based on damages caused by reckless or negligent misconduct, they will seek protection through reorganization in the bankruptcy courts. We are trying to reduce the level of gun violence in this country, and one way to do it, a way to support the cities and the mayors and the individuals who have been victimized by reckless or negligent manufacture or distribution, is to close a loophole in the bankruptcy system which a number of gun manufacturers have explicitly said they will use tactically to try to evade responsibility for their misconduct. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the 105th Congress, the Senate passed a meaningful bankruptcy reform bill by an almost unanimous vote. I voted for that bill because I thought it was a well-balanced reform bill that would discourage abuse of the system and provide enhanced protections and reasonable information to consumers. The final version of that bill was not approved in the 105th Congress, and so, once again, we engaged in debate over how to restructure the nation's bankruptcy laws. When we started debate on this bill, it was substantially different from the moderate, bi-partisan bill of last Congress. I was particularly concerned with the provisions relative to the means-test and consumer credit card disclosures. However, over the course of this debate, the Senate has adopted more than 40 amendments, making this a more reasonable approach to bankruptcy reform. As reported out of the Judiciary Committee, the bankruptcy reform bill did not include consumer protections providing reasonable disclosures of unsecured credit such as credit cards. Studies show that bankruptcy filings increase as household debt increases. High debt-to- income ratios makes working Americans more vulnerable to financial emergencies. I am pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment to provide enhanced access to consumer credit information. Creditors will be responsible for warning debtors about potential dangers of paying only minimum monthly payments and will make a toll free number available to the debtor for more specific information. Although this is not as helpful as the Senate's 1998 bill, it is a step in the right direction. The previous bankruptcy bill gave specific information to consumers about the months and years it would take for consumers to pay off their debts by paying the minimum payment and provided them with their total costs in interest and principle. A more detailed disclosure regarding minimum monthly payments will help families exercise personal responsibility and limit financial vulnerability. In addition, the Senate has made modest steps relative to the bankruptcy bill's means-test. The purpose of a means-test is to prevent consumers, who can afford to repay some of their debts, from abusing the system by filing for Chapter 7. Directing so-called abusive debtors away from Chapter 7, where debts are forgiven, and into Chapter 13, where the debtor must enter into a debt repayment plan, makes sense. But an inflexible means test, with virtually no exceptions, will, in the words of Henry Hyde, ``deprive debtors and their families of the means to pay for their basic needs.'' I hope that in conference, the Senate-House conferees will work toward establishing a more flexible means-test, one that makes allowances for basic expenses such as transportation, food and rent. I am pleased that two amendments I sponsored, a credit card redlining study and the prohibition of retroactive interest charges, were accepted by the Senate. The redlining amendment requires the Federal Reserve to conduct a study and report to the Banking committee about whether financial institutions use place of residence as a factor in determining credit worthiness. It is an important study that will bring to light the problem of unequal credit opportunity. My other amendment seeks to clarify what credit card companies refer to as a ``grace period.'' Credit card lenders use complicated definitions to explain that ``grace periods'' only apply if the balance is paid in full. For example, assume that a consumer charges an average of $1000 each month and always repays in full on time. If one month, due to an error he writes a check that is $10 less than the full amount he owes, but which is paid on time and is within the ``grace period,'' he probably would expect to pay the $10 charge and the interest on the $10 unpaid balance. However, he is really charged retroactively on the full $1,000 balance to the date the charges were made, even though he had paid 99% of the balance. This consumer's $10 error ends up costing him up to four times that in interest charges. Current practice by these companies undermines reasonable consumer expectations about what how a grace period for their payment works and results in monetary penalties from the application of interest charges. This amendment makes clear that the definition of a grace period is one where a consumer is extended credit. No finance charge can be imposed on the amount paid before the end of the ``grace period.'' I have decided to support this bill. However, I am very concerned by the inclusion of non-germane tax provisions which spend $76 billion of the projected non-Social Security surplus over the next ten years. While some of the provisions included in this package make sense, it is premature and unwise for the Congress to begin spending a surplus which is uncertain before we have begun to pay down the national debt and assured that our priorities in protecting Social Security and Medicare, investing in education, and considering other types of tax cuts have been met. For that reason, should this legislation come back from conference with some of these tax provisions or without the modest amendments we adopted in the Senate, I will consider opposing the bill at that time.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield my friend from New York 3 additional minutes.