Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator Specter, the Money Laundering Abatement Act of 1999. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of which I am the ranking member, is currently holding hearings on problems specific to private banking, a rapidly-growing financial service in which banks provide one-on-one services tailored to the individual needs of wealthy individuals. The Subcommittee's investigation and hearings show that private bankers have operated in a culture which emphasizes secrecy, impeding account documentation for regulators and law enforcement entities. This culture makes private banking peculiarly susceptible to money laundering. The Money Laundering Abatement Act is intended to supplement and reinforce the current anti-money-laundering laws and bolster the efforts of regulators and law enforcement bodies in this nation and around the world and the efforts of others in Congress. The Subcommittee's year-long investigation and testimony by distinguished financial experts, regulators, and banking industry personnel, revealed that private bankers regularly create devices such as shell corporations established in offshore jurisdictions to hide the source of and movement of clients' funds. The motives may be benign or they may be questionable but one thing is certain: they make it harder for regulators and law enforcement personnel to track the ownership and flow of funds and avert or apprehend laundering of the proceeds of drug and weapons trafficking, tax evasion, corruption, and other malfeasance. To make matters worse, many activities which Americans find reprehensible and which can destabilize regimes and economies are not currently illegal under foreign laws. Therefore, as the current money laundering laws are written, transactions in funds derived from such activities do not constitute money laundering, but they ought to constitute money laundering punishable under United States laws. My bill would patch these holes, particularly as they apply to private banking activities, the volume of which experts predict will grow exponentially as more and more wealth is created and banks compete for this lucrative line of business. Accordingly, I am today introducing legislation that would significantly increase the transparency of our banking system and make it possible for law enforcement and civil process to pierce the veil of secrecy that for too long has made it possible for institutions and individuals operating in largely unregulated off-shore jurisdictions to gain unfettered access to the U.S. financial system for purposes of legitimizing the proceeds of illegal or unsavory activity. A great problem in detecting money laundering is that many private banking transactions are conducted through fictitious entities or under false names or numbered accounts in which the actual or beneficial owner is not identified. The bill requires a financial institution that opens or maintains a U.S. account for a foreign entity to identify and maintain a record in the U.S. of the identity of each direct or beneficial owner of the account. The bill would further help banks in verifying customers' identities by making it illegal to misrepresent the true ownership of an account to a bank. The bill also imposes a ``48-hour rule'' under which, within 48 hours of a request by a federal banking agency, a financial institution would have to provide account information and documentation to the agency. Our investigation into private banking has shown that money launderers may launder their transactions by commingling the proceeds in so-called ``concentration accounts'' and aggregate the funds from multiple customers and transactions. The bill curtails the illicit use of these accounts by prohibiting institutions from using these accounts anonymously. The bill also prohibits U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts with so-called ``brass plate'' banks--most often in off-shore locations--that are not licensed to provide services in their home countries and are not subject to comprehensive home country supervision on a consolidated basis, reducing the likelihood that U.S.-based institutions will receive funds that may derive from illicit sources. The bill would also eliminate significant gaps in current U.S. law by expanding the list of crimes committed on foreign soil that can serve as predicate offenses for money laundering prosecutions in the U.S., including corruption and the misappropriation of IMF funds. It would expand the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, by including transactions in which money is laundered through a foreign bank as a U.S. crime if the transaction has a ``nexus'' in the United States. The bill addresses the reality that governmental corruption weakens economies and causes political instability and when U.S. banks profit from the fruits of such corruption they run counter to U.S. interests in ending such corruption. Another problem that we have encountered repeatedly in our investigation is that many private banks have written policies that repeatedly stress that the banker must know a customer's identity and source of funds. Yet in practice, many private bankers do not comply with their own bank's policies. To rectify this, the bill requires financial institutions to develop and apply due diligence standards for accounts for private banking customers to verify the customers' identity and source of wealth, both when opening such accounts and on an ongoing basis. Finally, the bill would authorize funding for FinCEN to develop an automated ``alert database.'' FinCEN, an arm of the Department of the Treasury, tracks Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports, important tools in fighting money laundering. However, FinCEN officials have told me that they lack a database which will automatically alert them to patterns of suspicious activity that could indicate money laundering or other illicit activity. Such a database is imperative to enable FinCEN to adequately serve the law enforcement bodies that it supplies information to. This bill will close gaps in our anti-money-laundering laws and regulations. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the call to end gun violence has become all too commonplace during this session of Congress. It seems as if each day, another one of us comes to the floor to express our outrage. Last week, it was about workplace violence in Honolulu and Seattle--a total of nine dead. In September it was a church shooting in Texas--a total of seven dead. In August, gun shots were fired in a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles--five injured, and moments later, a federal worker was gunned down on the street. In July, another workplace shooting--again nine people killed, this time in Atlanta. The list goes on and on, including one shooting none of us can forget--15 dead in Littleton. Each month, we watch these tragedies unfold--we witness Americans running and screaming for their lives, toddlers being led hand-in-hand out of danger, even bloody teenagers dangling from windows. And as the helicopters and SWAT-teams come to more and more of our neighborhoods, we observe scenes that seem more suitable for a horror movie than the front page of our local papers. And, still, each month, we react in the same way. We express outrage, we condemn killers, we call for sensible gun safety legislation, but we do not act. Congress has done nothing this year to control these mass- shootings or in any way, ease the agony that parents and families feel each day when they send their loved ones to school, church, or work. Mr. President, as Congress prepares to adjourn for the year, I send out this reminder: Americans have lost the sense of safety that they once felt in their schools and neighborhoods. They are frightened that the next breaking news story will be filmed on main street, rather than as a ``nightmare on elm street''. It is up to Congress to end gun violence and the all too familiar terror in the lives of ordinary Americans.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator Specter, the Money Laundering Abatement Act of 1999. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of which I am the ranking member, is currently holding hearings on problems specific to private banking, a rapidly-growing financial service in which banks provide one-on-one services tailored to the individual needs of wealthy individuals. The Subcommittee's investigation and hearings show that private bankers have operated in a culture which emphasizes secrecy, impeding account documentation for regulators and law enforcement entities. This culture makes private banking peculiarly susceptible to money laundering. The Money Laundering Abatement Act is intended to supplement and reinforce the current anti-money-laundering laws and bolster the efforts of regulators and law enforcement bodies in this nation and around the world and the efforts of others in Congress. The Subcommittee's year-long investigation and testimony by distinguished financial experts, regulators, and banking industry personnel, revealed that private bankers regularly create devices such as shell corporations established in offshore jurisdictions to hide the source of and movement of clients' funds. The motives may be benign or they may be questionable but one thing is certain: they make it harder for regulators and law enforcement personnel to track the ownership and flow of funds and avert or apprehend laundering of the proceeds of drug and weapons trafficking, tax evasion, corruption, and other malfeasance. To make matters worse, many activities which Americans find reprehensible and which can destabilize regimes and economies are not currently illegal under foreign laws. Therefore, as the current money laundering laws are written, transactions in funds derived from such activities do not constitute money laundering, but they ought to constitute money laundering punishable under United States laws. My bill would patch these holes, particularly as they apply to private banking activities, the volume of which experts predict will grow exponentially as more and more wealth is created and banks compete for this lucrative line of business. Accordingly, I am today introducing legislation that would significantly increase the transparency of our banking system and make it possible for law enforcement and civil process to pierce the veil of secrecy that for too long has made it possible for institutions and individuals operating in largely unregulated off-shore jurisdictions to gain unfettered access to the U.S. financial system for purposes of legitimizing the proceeds of illegal or unsavory activity. A great problem in detecting money laundering is that many private banking transactions are conducted through fictitious entities or under false names or numbered accounts in which the actual or beneficial owner is not identified. The bill requires a financial institution that opens or maintains a U.S. account for a foreign entity to identify and maintain a record in the U.S. of the identity of each direct or beneficial owner of the account. The bill would further help banks in verifying customers' identities by making it illegal to misrepresent the true ownership of an account to a bank. The bill also imposes a ``48-hour rule'' under which, within 48 hours of a request by a federal banking agency, a financial institution would have to provide account information and documentation to the agency. Our investigation into private banking has shown that money launderers may launder their transactions by commingling the proceeds in so-called ``concentration accounts'' and aggregate the funds from multiple customers and transactions. The bill curtails the illicit use of these accounts by prohibiting institutions from using these accounts anonymously. The bill also prohibits U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts with so-called ``brass plate'' banks--most often in off-shore locations--that are not licensed to provide services in their home countries and are not subject to comprehensive home country supervision on a consolidated basis, reducing the likelihood that U.S.-based institutions will receive funds that may derive from illicit sources. The bill would also eliminate significant gaps in current U.S. law by expanding the list of crimes committed on foreign soil that can serve as predicate offenses for money laundering prosecutions in the U.S., including corruption and the misappropriation of IMF funds. It would expand the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, by including transactions in which money is laundered through a foreign bank as a U.S. crime if the transaction has a ``nexus'' in the United States. The bill addresses the reality that governmental corruption weakens economies and causes political instability and when U.S. banks profit from the fruits of such corruption they run counter to U.S. interests in ending such corruption. Another problem that we have encountered repeatedly in our investigation is that many private banks have written policies that repeatedly stress that the banker must know a customer's identity and source of funds. Yet in practice, many private bankers do not comply with their own bank's policies. To rectify this, the bill requires financial institutions to develop and apply due diligence standards for accounts for private banking customers to verify the customers' identity and source of wealth, both when opening such accounts and on an ongoing basis. Finally, the bill would authorize funding for FinCEN to develop an automated ``alert database.'' FinCEN, an arm of the Department of the Treasury, tracks Currency Transaction Reports and Suspicious Activity Reports, important tools in fighting money laundering. However, FinCEN officials have told me that they lack a database which will automatically alert them to patterns of suspicious activity that could indicate money laundering or other illicit activity. Such a database is imperative to enable FinCEN to adequately serve the law enforcement bodies that it supplies information to. This bill will close gaps in our anti-money-laundering laws and regulations. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Republican drug amendment to the bankruptcy bill would authorize private school vouchers for students who are injured by offenses on public school grounds. It allows school districts to use funds from other Federal education programs, including IDEA funds, technology funds and others, to provide vouchers. I will vote against this amendment. I will do so because it will not make our schools safer and it will not invest in student achievement. Ninety percent of students are educated in our nation's public schools. Our public tax dollars should be used for improving public schools, through smaller class size, well-trained teachers, more after-school programs, modern facilities, higher standards, and safe and secure classes. I repeat, vouchers are the wrong way to go. My decision to oppose this amendment is bitter-sweet because while I oppose the voucher provisions of this amendment, I strongly support a provision of the amendment which is, in fact, legislation which I co- authored and introduced with Senator Hatch, Senator Moynihan and Senator Biden in January of this year--S. 324, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act. It addresses a long-time crusade of mine--that of speeding the development and delivery of anti-addiction medications that block the craving for illicit addictive substances. This is one way in which we can fight and win the war on drugs--by blocking the craving for illegal substances. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act is aimed at achieving this goal. It was originally reported out of the Judiciary Committee as Sec. 18 of the Methamphetamine Anti- Proliferation Act of 1999, and provides for qualified physicians to prescribe schedule IV and V anti-addiction medications in their offices, under certain strict conditions. I was pleased to have introduced S. 324 along with my distinguished colleagues. I regret that this vital legislation, which can be a tool for fighting and winning the war on drugs, is included in an amendment that I cannot support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the most prosperous nation in the world, our minimum wage should be a living wage, and it is not. When a father or mother works full-time, 40 hours a week, year-round, they should be able to lift their family out of poverty. $5.15 an hour will not do that. A full time minimum wage job should provide a minimum standard of living in addition to giving workers the dignity that comes with a paycheck. The current minimum wage does not pay a fair wage. I support the legislation introduced by Representative David Bonior in the House and Senator Ted Kennedy in the Senate which increases the minimum wage. This legislation, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, will provide a 50 cent increase to the minimum wage on January 1, 2000, and a second 50 cent increase on January 1, 2001. This would raise the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour by the year 2001. The minimum wage increase passed in 1996 prevented the minimum wage from falling to its lowest inflation adjusted level in 40 years. The proposed minimum wage increase to $6.15 in 2001 would get the minimum wage back to the inflation adjusted level it was in 1982. In this era of economic growth, raising the minimum wage is a matter of fundamental fairness. We must look around and realize that we have the strongest economy in a generation. However, even with our strong economy, the benefits of prosperity have not flowed to low-wage workers. A full time minimum wage laborer working forty hours a week for 52 weeks earns $10,712 per year--more than $3,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. The poverty level for a family of three is $13,880. Some people are saying that it is not time for a minimum wage increase, that we just raised the minimum wage in 1996 and in 1997. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the last minimum wage increase of 1996-97, the national unemployment rate has fallen to 4.1%. Not only that, the unemployment rate has dropped in Michigan, it is now 3.4%--lower than the national rate. It is only right that we help these minimum wage earners when the economy is booming. Retail jobs are often cited as the industry hit hardest by an increase in the minimum wage. However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 38,900 new retail jobs have been added in Michigan since the last minimum wage increase. Moreover, in Michigan, since September of 1996, 206,000 new jobs have been created. The opponents claimed that the 1996 minimum wage increase would devastate the economy, yet clearly, this has not been the case. According to the United States Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are women; nearly three-fourths are adults; more than half work full time. Under the Fair Minimum Wage Act, approximately 243,000 Michiganders would get a raise. These hardworking Americans deserve a fair deal. The Fair Minimum Wage Act will increase the real value of the minimum wage in 2001 to the purchasing level it was in 1982. It will generate $2,000 in potential income for minimum wage workers. This $2,000 will make an enormous impact on minimum wage workers and their families. Opponents of the minimum wage have said that the minimum wage hurts low income workers. This is not the case. In 1998, seventeen economists, including a Nobel Prize winner, a former president of the American Economics Assn. and a former Secretary of Labor, wrote to President Clinton, supporting an increase in the minimum wage. These experts determined that the 1996 and 1997 increases had a beneficial effect, not only on those whose earnings were increased, but also on the economy as a whole. In addition to directly impacting workers, billions in added consumer demand helped fuel our expanding economy in those years. With a prosperous economy, it is only fair that we also reward those who are at the low end of the pay scale spectrum. These people do not always have the leverage to negotiate a fair salary. It is necessary that we act to ensure that they receive a livable wage.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment I will offer requires the Federal Reserve to submit a report to the Senate and House Banking Committees concerning: (1) whether the location of the residence of an applicant for a credit card is considered by a financial institution in determining whether the applicant should be granted such card; and (2) the purposes for which such location is taken into consideration by such institution. Mr. President, an individual's credit worthiness should be judged on his or her own credit history and not on where that individual happens to live. The stereotyping of consumers based on where they live is a social evil with very negative social consequences. The Congress has been instrumental in formulating legislation that seeks equal credit opportunity for all. If creditworthy persons can be rejected on account of his or her place of residence, our work is incomplete. Credit applicants should be considered on the basis of their individualized creditworthiness and not on the basis of place of residence. Mr. President, this amendment requires that the Federal Reserve report be submitted not later than six months after the date of enactment of this act. I understand that the committee has no obligation to this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed following my remarks. The amendment is as follows: section 415

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to explain my amendment to S. Res. 208 expressing the sense of the Senate on United States policy toward NATO and the European Union and my own personal view regarding the desirability of our European Allies conducting operations in their own backyard. My amendment makes three important changes to the language of the resolution as reported out by the Foreign Relations Committee. First of all, the amendment substitutes ``the'' for ``its'' before ``European Security and Defense Identity'' to make the point that the European Security and Defense Identity, or ESDI, is being developed within, not outside, the NATO Alliance. This simple fact is enshrined in a number of North Atlantic Council communiques and declarations, starting with the Declaration of Heads of State and Government issued at the Council meeting in Brussels on June 11, 1994. This is important because the development of the ESDI within the Alliance means that, as the 1994 Brussels Declaration stated, ``NATO will remain the essential forum for consultation among its members and the venue for agreement on policies bearing on security and defense commitments of Allies under the Washington Treaty.'' Next, my amendment deletes the references to NATO being ``offered the opportunity to undertake the mission'' and then that NATO ``referred it to the European Union for action.'' The first point here is that on one has to offer a mission to NATO; the North Atlantic Council is in permanent session so that it can continuously review events that could impact on stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and can react to them, if necessary. Consequently, it doesn't have to be offered an opportunity to undertake a mission; it has that responsibility and the means to effect it on a continuing basis. The next point is that NATO doesn't refer a mission to the European Union; the EU will undoubtedly have been following such an event on its own and won't need a referral from NATO to do so. And the final and perhaps most important point is that this change removes the connotation that somehow the European Union is subservient to NATO. The last change is to simply substitute ``should'' for ``must'' in the subparagraph relating to the implementation of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. This will avoid the connotation that the United States is dictating to an organization of sovereign states. Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my own personal view concerning the desirability of our European Allies conducting operations in their own backyard. I have long been a supporter of the ESDI and I am a supporter of the U.S.-sponsored Defense Capabilities Initiative that was recently adopted by NATO. NATO's Operation Allied Force demonstrated a capabilities gap between the United States and our NATO Allies. I welcome the stated determination of our European Allies to develop the capability to act on their own. I welcome the fact that they are providing more than 80 percent of the forces participating in the NATO-led Kosovo Force. I would welcome it if our European Allies would handle the next crisis that develops in Europe. I would be happy if the United States' contribution was limited, for instance, to providing such things as command and control, communications, and intelligence support and I would be even more pleased if the United States didn't have to provide any support and our European Allies were capable of handling a crisis on their own. I have characterized the United States as being a junior partner and the European Allies being the senior partner in the KFOR peacekeeping mission. I know that there are many people, including some within the Administration who don't like that characterization, but I see nothing wrong with it. Mr. President, the United States Congress for years has urged Europe to play a greater role in its own defense and to bear more of the collective security burden in NATO. I, for one, can take yes for an answer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those two amendments be laid aside and that I be permitted to call up amendment No. 2658 relating to the nondischargeability of debts arising from firearm-related deaths.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Iowa.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and that two amendments be called up en bloc, No. 2768, relating to retroactive finance charges, and 2772 relative to residency issues on credit card issuance.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday the Armed Services Committee received testimony from recently-retired German General Klaus Naumann, the former Chairman of NATO's Military Committee. In that capacity, General Naumann was NATO's highest ranking military officer and headed the NATO organization which consists of the Chiefs of Defense, i.e. the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton and his counterparts, of all 19 NATO countries and to which NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, General Wesley Clark, and Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, Admiral Harold Gehman, report. The topic for the hearing was lessons learned from NATO's Operation Allied Force, the air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of General Naumann's opening statement be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. LEVIN. I hope that my colleagues will read General Naumann's thoughtful, straight-forward, and insightful statement. But, I want to highlight a few of General Naumann's conclusions--conclusions with which I agree and whose implications I believe merit careful consideration by us all. First and most importantly, General Naumann concluded that ``it was the cohesion of our 19 nations which brought about success.'' In the course of the hearing, he pointed out that this cohesion was maintained despite the fact that, for example, polls indicated that some 95 percent of Greek citizens opposed the operation. General Naumann also concluded that ``it will be virtually impossible to use the devastating power of modern military forces in coalition operations to the fullest extent'' but that this disadvantage ``is partly compensated by the much stronger political impact a coalition operation has as compared to the operation of a single nation.'' In that regard, I asked General Naumann for his reaction to a lesson that, I believe, applies. The lesson is not that we ought to use less than decisive force but that if that is not an option, then the judgment that must be made is whether or not the risk in utilizing what I call ``maximum achievable force,'' i.e. the maximum force that is politically achievable and which is less than decisive force, whether the risk involved outweighs the value of proceeding. General Naumann, as General Clark did in a prior hearing, agreed that it was a lesson learned from NATO's air campaign and that the question or balancing test that I posed was the proper one. General Naumann had a number of other lessons and sage advice for us, such as that the United States should fully support the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) within the Alliance and that ESDI can strengthen the transatlantic link. Once again, I strongly urge my colleagues to read General Naumann's statement. Exhibit 1 Statement of General (ret) Klaus Naumann, German Army, Former Chairman

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is prepared to pass the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation to strengthen SBA's Women's Business Centers in Michigan and across the nation which help entrepreneurs start and maintain successful businesses by providing such things as start-up help and financial expertise to women-owned businesses. This legislation will allow those Women's Business Centers that are already successfully participating in the program to recompete for Federal funding after their initial funding term expires. These Centers would have previously been ineligible for renewed funding. Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of small businesses in America and provide innumerable jobs and resources to the state of Michigan and around the country. Last year, women-owned businesses made up more than one-third of the 23 million small businesses in the United States. The Women's Business Center program offers important tools to women who want to start or expand small businesses. However, the program is in danger of losing many effective Centers because the Centers are finding it increasingly difficult to raise the required non-Federal matching funds necessary to keep the programs running. This legislation allows existing Centers to recompete for Federal funds, but sets the recompetition standards higher than those used for centers applying for their initial five-year funding term. This is to take into account established Centers' higher levels of experience and ensures that Centers meeting the highest standards can continue to get funded. The ability of established and successful Women's Business Development Centers to continue to compete for Federal funding means that critical resources will continue to be made available for women- owned businesses for such purposes as training and obtaining business financing. Michigan has three Women's Business Centers, the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development, CEED, which houses the Women's Initiative for Self-Employment, WISE, in Ann Arbor, the Grand Rapids Opportunities for Women, GROW, in Grand Rapids, and The Detroit Entrepreneurship Institute, Inc, DEI. These Michigan programs offer women who want to open a small business a comprehensive package of business education and training, start-up financing, technical assistance, peer group support and access to community and government supportive resources such as child care. Michigan's Women's Business Centers strongly support this legislation and believe they need to be able to recompete for Federal resources in order to continue to be able to offer the current levels of services and support to Michigan's women-owned businesses. This bill would allow them to do that. I am pleased that Congress has continued to recognize the importance of funding the Women's Business Center program. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation to make a 1989-1991 pilot project a permanent part of the Small Business Administration programs available to help entrepreneurs start and maintain successful business. It also doubled the annual funding of the Women's Business Centers and extend the funding period from 3 to 5 years. And just this year, Congress enacted legislation to change the non-Federal and Federal funding ratio requirements and it again increased the annual authorization level from $8 million to $11 million. The legislation that will be passed by the Senate today under a unanimous consent agreement will allow existing Women's Business Centers to compete for additional Federal funding. It also authorizes increased appropriations for the program for 4 years. It increases the FY 2000 and FY 2001 authorization from $11 million to $12 million. It also authorizes appropriations of $12.8 million in FY 2001; $13.7 million in FY 2002; and $14.5 million in FY 2003 for this program. This is an important piece of legislation and I am pleased my Senate colleagues are supporting it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It is for this reason that I sponsored, with the support of Senator Schumer, an amendment to S. 900 which stated the following: ``It is the intention of this Act subject to carefully defined exceptions which do not undermine the dominant principle of functional regulation to ensure that securities transactions effected by a bank are regulated by securities regulators, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act.'' This amendment was agreed to during Senate consideration of S. 900. Senator Sarbanes, as ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, is it your understanding that the conference report upholds the approach which I sought in my amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Meaningful oversight by the SEC of securities transactions by banks is critical to the financial health of our economy. Functional regulation will help to ensure that confidence in our financial system continues. Mr. President, I have a copy of a letter from the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt to Senate Banking Chairman Phil Gramm in which Chairman Levitt ``enthusiastically support(s) the securities provisions contained in the (chairman's) Mark'' which eventually became part of the conference report. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record following this colloquy.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sarbanes for entering into this colloquy with me during consideration of the conference report to the financial services modernization bill, S. 900. This is an important bill which will bring our nation's regulatory structure up to date with the many changes that have taken place over the past several decades regarding the activities of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies.

Mr. LEVIN. As I understand it, S. 900 will, among other things, make changes to the Glass-Steagall Act which separates banking and securities business so that banks and their affiliates will be able to take part in securities transactions from which they were previously prohibited.

Mr. LEVIN. During Senate consideration of S. 900, I was concerned with the ability of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to enter into these new activities, and how these new activities would be regulated and by whom. In particular, I was concerned with how the securities activities of banks would be regulated. In the original version of S. 900 there were loopholes which allowed the securities activities of banks to go unregulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I felt that these loopholes should be closed. I believe that it makes the most sense for the regulators who have the most experience in securities transactions, namely the SEC, to oversee these activities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, both the State of Michigan and the City of Detroit have proclaimed the month of October ``Respect Month'' for the past decade and October 30th ``Respect Your Neighborhood Day''. These designations give us the opportunity to recognize and celebrate the many daily acts of service, that sometimes go unnoticed, but are so vital to binding our communities and nation together with harmony and unity. Over the last month, organizations and schools in Michigan took the opportunity to give young people a greater acceptance of the similarities and differences of others. The principle of respect is especially important in the aftermath of last school year's shootings. While our nation is focused on creating an atmosphere free from fear and violence, it is important to pause and reflect on our respect for one another. Respect is a valuable lesson for the schools who are struggling to repair the damage these horrific acts of violence have caused. In fact, in the last few weeks I have reported several incidences of gun violence which have devastated families and school communities, leaving many people wondering what we, as a nation, can do to prevent these tragedies, and how we can reinforce the rule of respect. I believe there are many things that we can do to make a difference. I have stated many times that one of the first things Congress can do is limit the easy access to firearms by our young people. I will continue to speak out about the need for strengthening our gun laws, but I also believe that there are other critical components of the complex puzzle of youth violence and one of them is respect. Devoting a month to respect provides an excellent avenue by which our young people can focus on the importance of honor, acceptance, and values. While this is not expected to end all violence, it is my hope that by continuing to implement the lessons of respect in our daily lives, we can, in fact, make a positive impact in neighborhoods, not only across Michigan, but across the country as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, President Clinton recently emphasized that while expanding trade, we also need to have basic labor standards so that people who work receive the dignity and reward of their work. The President said the WTO should create a working group in Seattle on trade and labor and asked, ``How we can deny the legitimacy or the linking of these issues, trade and labor, in a global economy?'' How, indeed? The rhetoric sounds right--that we should link the granting of trade benefits to whether countries are abiding by internationally recognized standards on such things as child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights. This should be especially the case when these countries have freely undertaken such obligations in treaties or conventions. This is a laudable objective and one that the Administration is now promoting. But how do we implement this objective? We have our first test case under consideration before the Senate today. We should begin to promote standards on such things as child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights as part of our trade relationships by considering progress on those goals when unilaterally granting a trade benefit. In considering whether to grant a country a unilateral trade benefit, the President surely ought to consider the extent to which that country has undertaken its own existing obligations, obligations under treaties and conventions it has freely entered into relative to child labor, collective bargaining, the use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights. Unfortunately, in the bill under consideration today, the President is not required to even consider this factor. Mr. President, the trade bill we are considering contains two provisions that would provide trade benefits to certain countries unilaterally without asking that reciprocal action be taken. This bill is flawed and it doesn't live up to our repeatedly stated beliefs. It contains no required consideration of the extent to which a beneficiary country has undertaken to live up to its own commitments to internationally recognized standards on such things as child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights, before the country may receive the trade benefit conferred in the bill. I believe the extent to which a country demonstrates a willingness to abide by its own commitments freely undertaken, be it to labor standards, or anything else, should be an element that is at least considered when determining a country's eligibility to receive special benefits. As the bill is currently written, before granting the trade benefits, the President must make certain determinations, such as determining if the country has demonstrated a commitment to undertake WTO obligations and to take steps to join the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). Only as a secondary consideration, the President may consider, when determining if the country has demonstrated a commitment to the WTO and FTAA, additional criteria, including the extent to which the country provides internationally recognized worker rights. This is not strong enough because it is a discretionary standard that the President is not required to even consider and it is also only a secondary consideration that can be taken into account when making a determination as to whether a country has demonstrated a commitment to pursue certain other ends. It is not an end in itself. It seems to me that the type of trade benefit we are considering today, a one-way-granting by the United States of duty free treatment, is a logical place to include a consideration of whether a country is attempting to live up to its own obligations it has freely undertaken with regard to standards on such things as child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights. The President has said he wants to start to link trade and labor standards and will take steps to try to achieve this in the next round of WTO negotiations starting in Seattle. We should start here at home by requiring that the extent to which a beneficiary country has demonstrated a commitment to abide by obligations it has already undertaken in treaties and conventions it has freely entered into relative to child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights. If we can't even include such a consideration in today's legislation, how do we expect to succeed in including such provisions in a multilateral negotiation of over 130 member nations? Mr. President, I am offering an amendment which would require consideration of internationally recognized labor standards when determining if a CBI country may benefit from unilateral trade preferences. My amendment would require the President, when designating a CBTEA beneficiary country, to consider the extent to which the country provides internationally recognized worker rights, such as the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively; prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or compulsory labor and a minimum age for the employment of children. Most CBI countries are signatories of the International Labor Organization conventions. Considering the extent to which these countries abide by their own international obligations is the least we can do when considering whether they deserve to receive unilateral trade preferences from us.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is a difficult vote for me. This bill contains provisions I support such as the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act (TAA) and the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. But the CBI provision of the bill is troubling because it extends benefits unilaterally without assurances that reciprocal trade benefits will be granted to U.S. products. However, with the adoption of the Levin-Moynihan amendment some progress is assured because under this amendment, the President would be required to take into consideration the extent to which a country provides internationally recognized worker rights, including child labor, collective bargaining, the use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and labor standards before the trade benefit can be granted. The adoption of this amendment is a major reason I have decided to vote for this bill. I hope this provision can be further strengthened in Conference. However, at a minimum, Senator Moynihan has assured me a strong effort will be made to retain the provision in Conference. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the chartering of United Automobile Workers Local 599, which is located in Flint, Michigan. UAW Local 599 received its charter on January 10, 1939. During the 60 years since its founding, Local 599 members have been powerful advocates for the rights of working men and women and their families. Local 599 has helped to improve the living standards of its members by successfully fighting for fair wages; sick, accident and life insurance; workers compensation; unemployment compensation; and education and training opportunities. In addition to the success Local 599 has achieved for its members and their families, the men and women of the Local have been deeply involved in the life of the Flint community by supporting countless civic and charitable activities. UAW Local 599 has truly played an important role in the history of the labor movement. I know my colleagues join me in extending sincere congratulations to the past and present members of Local 599, as they celebrate the 60th anniversary of its founding.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday, students from around the country came to Washington to ask for help. Students participating in the Children's March for Gun Control marched hand-in-hand to Capitol Hill with a simple demand: to keep them safe from guns. Members of Congress should tune out the NRA, and start listening to these children--who have to face the fear of guns everyday. The children from across the country are pleading that Congress create an environment free from fear and violence. These children are armed, not with firearms, but with letters, urging Congress to end the epidemic of gun violence that claims the lives of thousands of their peers each year. Yet, while Congress should be passing comprehensive legislation to prevent school shootings like those in Conyers, Littleton, Springfield, Edinboro, Jonesboro, West Paducah, Pearl and the many others, it cannot even muster enough votes to take UZIs and AK-47s out of the hands of 15 year olds. After Columbine, the Senate took a few steps to protect children from gun violence. We passed legislation to prohibit juveniles from owning semiautomatic weapons and large capacity ammunition devices. We passed an amendment to require that handguns be sold with trigger locking devices to protect children. And we passed an amendment to close the gun show loophole, ensuring juveniles and others cannot use these shows as a convenient way to circumvent the safeguards applied to normal sales through licensed gun dealers. That legislation was a first step, but it still falls short of closing loopholes which allow our youth easy access to deadly weapons. For example, one of our most important tasks yet will be to ban handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons for persons under 21 years of age. Yet, even the most minimal effort to end gun violence has been stymied in the House of Representatives, where they have passed no gun safety legislation. And any effort to come to some agreement has been repeatedly stalled by the Republican leadership. It was great to welcome such a group of dedicated young people to the nation's Capitol. I encourage them to keep up their effort and to speak out for those children who have been silenced by guns. Over time, these children are sure to accomplish what other nations have done: end the plague of gun violence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair because I know it is extending beyond the time which the Senate was to be in session, and as always I appreciate his courtesy.