Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No, I do not limit it to that.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. But in the absence of circumstances I cannot foresee, I would oppose bringing this treaty up next year for the reasons I have given. In conclusion, at a minimum, I believe we should do no harm. At least let us do no harm in the battle against proliferation. Bringing this treaty up now for a vote--not for debate, which we are doing under a UC, but for a vote--in my judgment, would do harm to the battle against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I hope we will be able to find a way that we not reach that vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. If I can have 10 more seconds, I have not been reluctant at all to say this over the last few days. I have been very open about my feelings on this issue and that bringing this treaty to a vote now would do harm. I join my friend from Virginia in that belief.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after the Senator from Texas goes ahead of us--which is fine if she has to catch a flight--could there be two Democrats at that point?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Abraham and I have come to the floor to seek assurance from Senator Roth and Senator Specter that they will include our amendment concerning Heartland Manor in any Medicare BBA fix bill that is taken up by the Finance Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the assurance that the Senator from Pennsylvania has given on this issue. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, will he review our amendment for possible inclusion in any Medicare BBA legislation that he takes up this year?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senators Roth and Specter for their help in this matter and I look forward to working with Senator Roth as we move forward with this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to describe this amendment and why it is so necessary. Our amendment concerns Heartland Manor, a nursing home located in Flint, Michigan, that provides care to an underserved population. Heartland Manor is not out to make money--it is owned by the Hurley Foundation which is not for profit 501(c)(3) subsidiary of Hurley Medical Center. Hurley Medical Center is a not for profit public hospital with an excellent reputation. Hurley Medical Center is one of the few city owned hospitals left in the country, and it is the largest hospital in Flint, Michigan. On July 27, 1989, Chateau Gardens, a privately owned nursing home facility, was terminated from the Medicare program. On January 1, 1994, Hurley Foundation, a not for profit 501(c)(3) subsidiary of Hurley Medical Center, purchased Chateau Gardens at the request of the state. In 1994 Heartland Manor applied for certification into the Medicare program as a new or prospective provider. Heartland Manor had never before entered into a Medicare participation agreement and had never been issued a provider number. However, HCFA treated Heartland as a re- entry provider and Heartland was subsequently denied participation into the Medicare program based in large part on violations which HCFA carried over from Chateau Gardens, the previous owner. If Heartland Manor had been treated as a new provider, it would have been approved and would presently be in the Medicare program. This amendment would allow the facility to come into the Medicare program as a prospective provider which is exactly how the facility should be treated. Heartland Manor has the backing of Citizens for Better Care, a nonprofit agency, funded by the United Way, which monitors nursing home care in Michigan. Moreover, the Mayor of Flint, Woodrow Stanley, the Congressman representing Flint, Representative Dale Kildee, and State Senator Bob Emerson all want to keep this nursing home open. These organizations and I wouldn't all be supportive of the facility if this nursing home were not meeting the needs of the Flint community. I have visited Heartland manor and I believe that it should not be closed. I would not make such a bold assertion if I could not honestly say that this is a nursing home that has made great strides in recent years and which is now providing an important service to the Flint community. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this amendment is part of any Medicare BBA package. Dental SeaLants

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this week, students at Erickson Elementary School and Willow Run High School are mourning the deaths of their peers. On Sunday afternoon, gun fire cut short the lives of two young boys in Ypsilanti Township. Sixteen year old Ernest Earl Lemons was shot in plain daylight, after a fight broke out between young people. Nine year old Cullen Ethington, who was a half a block away, was also killed by a stray bullet from that fight. Both young people are now being remembered by their classmates and teachers. The tree where Lemons fell, after he was shot, is now decorated with teddy bears. Students at Erickson are planning to plant a tree or flowers in honor of the short life of fourth grader Cullen Ethington, who will be memorialized by his classmates as a peer mediator who helped students resolve their disputes without violence. School children are too often the victims of senseless gun violence. Gun violence results in injury and death, destroys families, and causes lasting psychological and emotional harm. In Michigan, each school is now forced to handle the trauma of children losing other children to gunfire. As many other school districts now know, violence and the fear of violence is not only tragic for individuals and families involved, it also interferes tremendously with the educational process. Students at Erickson, for example, are now spending time at school with trauma teams learning how to cope with death while their peers at other schools are learning about the pilgrims and practicing for the school play. Congress must act now to end the proliferation of gun violence. Like young Cullen, we must not only make a pledge to live our lives without violence, but must also send a message to others that violence is never the answer. My thoughts and prayers go out to the both the Ethington and the Lemons families.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a new exhibit of artifacts from the SS Wayne Victory. The exhibit, which is located at Wayne State University in my home town of Detroit, MI, is being dedicated on Friday, October 8, 1999. The SS Wayne Victory was a so-called ``Victory Ship,'' one of several hundred ships built during the final two years of World War II to serve as cargo and troop transport vessels. The SS Wayne Victory was named for Wayne University, now known as Wayne State University. Commissioned in 1945, the SS Wayne Victory served in World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam war. Thanks to the efforts of a Wayne State University alumnus, the contributions of the SS Wayne Victory to our armed forces will be celebrated for years to come. Many ships of its kind fell into disuse and were forgotten after their service. Fortunately, Joe Gerson, who grew up in Detroit and graduated from Wayne State University in 1951, located the SS Wayne Victory and negotiated with the federal government for the permanent loan of several artifacts from the ship to the university. These artifacts include the ship's bell, engine order telegraph, wheel, furniture, oars, life rings, and name board. Mr. Gerson also generously contributed funds which allowed the university to transport the artifacts to Detroit and to display them in the permanent exhibit being dedicated this Friday. Mr. President, the preservation of artifacts like those from the SS Wayne Victory is critical if we are to continue to learn from history. Thanks to Joe Gerson and Wayne State University, one small, but significant, piece of American military history will be available for people to study in the 21st century. I know my colleagues join me in extending Joe Gerson and Wayne State University our thanks and congratulations for their commitment to the preservation of the memory of the SS Wayne Victory's role in some of the most significant military conflicts in our nation's history.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Akaka, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999. This legislation concerns Federal employees who are under a court order to provide health insurance to their dependent children. If a Federal employee is under such a court order and his dependent children have no health insurance coverage, the Federal government would be authorized to enroll the employee in a ``family coverage'' health plan. If the employee is not enrolled in any health care plan, the Federal government would be authorized to enroll the employee and his or her family in the standard option of the service benefit plan. The bill would also prevent the employee from canceling health coverage for his dependent children for the term of the court order. This bill would close a loophole created by the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The 1993 bill required each State to enact legislation requiring an employer to enroll a dependent child in an employee's group health plan when an employee is under a court order to provide health insurance for his or her child but neglects to do so. This legislation simply provides Federal agencies with the same authority granted to the states. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act. I have traveled around my State of Michigan and I have heard from all types of health care providers. I consistently hear one message: all health care providers, big and small, are reeling from the cuts mandated under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA). When Congress passed the BBA, it was estimated that it would save $112 billion in Medicare expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office has reestimated those savings at $206 billion. It is clear that the BBA has gone further than we intended. This bill addresses some of the problems the health care community is facing. The bill provides some measure of relief to providers by committing $20 billion dollars towards addressing some of the BBA problems. Here are some of the bill's provisions: Medicare currently pays hospital outpatient departments for their reasonable costs, subject to some limits and fee schedules. To create incentives for efficient care, the BBA included a prospective payment system (PPS) for hospital outpatient departments. HCFA expects to implement this system in July 2000. When implemented, it is expected to reduce hospital outpatient revenues by 5.7 percent on average. Michigan hospitals have told me that this payment system will reduce annual hospital payments for out patient services by $43 million for Michigan hospitals. This bill would protect all hospitals from extraordinary losses during a transition period. Each hospital would compare its payments under the PPS to a proxy for what the hospital would have been paid under cost-based reimbursement. In the first year, no hospital could lose more than 5% under the new system. This percentage would increase to 10% in the second year and 15% in the third year. Prior to the BBA, a hospital's inpatient payments increased by 7.7% if the hospital had one intern or resident for every 10 beds. This percentage was cut to 7.0% in 1998, and phased down to be set permanently at 5.5% by 2001. This bill freezes Indirect Medical Education (IME) payments at the current level of 6.5% for 8 years. Due to concern that Medicare+Choice managed care plans were not passing along payments for Graduate Medical Education (GME) to teaching hospitals, the BBA carved out payments for GME and IME from Medicare + Choice rates and directed them to those hospitals. However, the carve out was phased in over several years. This bill contains a provision that would speed up the carve-out, ensuring that teaching hospitals get adequate compensation for the patients they serve. Teaching hospitals are critically important to Michigan. There are 58 teaching hospitals in Michigan, which constitutes one of the nation's largest GME programs. The BBA reduced disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments by 1% in 1998, 2% in 1999, 3% in 2000, 4% in 2001, and 5% in 2002. This bill would freeze the cut in disproportionate share payments at 2% for 2000 through 2002. The BBA created a prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities. There has been a concern that the PPS may not adequately account for the costs of high acuity patients. This bill includes a number of provisions to alleviate the problems facing skilled nursing facilities. Importantly, this bill repeals the arbitrary $1500 therapy cap that was mandated under the BBA. The BBA mandated a 15% cut to home health payments. Last year Congress delayed this cut to October 2000. Our bill would further delay this 15% cut for two years. In addition, our bill creates an outlier policy to protect agencies who serve high cost beneficiaries. The BBA phased out cost based Medicaid reimbursement for rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers but did not replace it with anything to assure that these clinics would be adequately funded. Our bill creates a new system for clinic payments. In summary, these provisions are vitally important to the health care community of Michigan, both providers and beneficiaries. We cannot afford to allow our health care system, the best in the world, to decline.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the University of Michigan Medical School as it celebrates its 150th Anniversary. On October 1, 1999, its faculty, staff, alumni, students and friends will gather to celebrate the Medical School's distinguished history and reputation. Since its founding in 1850, the men and women of the University of Michigan Medical School have been pioneers in the practice of medicine. With over 18,260 M.D. degrees awarded since the first graduating class in 1851, the Medical School's alumni and faculty have left an indelible mark on the course of medical history. With leading roles in the field trials of the Salk polio vaccine, pioneering cancer treatments, innovative uses of new technology in medicine and much more, it has greatly impacted the health of our entire nation. In addition, the University has a remarkably long list of innovative firsts. It opened the nation's first university-owned hospital in 1869, the first department of pharmacology in 1891, the first university- operated psychiatric hospital in 1906, the first children's psychiatric hospital and the nation's first Human Genetics Department. It has been an impressive century and a half indeed. According to statistics recorded by the Center for Disease Control, in the last century alone, the average life expectancy has increased nearly 30 years, from approximately 47 years in 1900 to more than 76 years today. Medical advances have not only added years to the lives of Americans, but have also added quality to those years. Among those leading the way to longer and healthier lives have been the faculty and alumni of the University of Michigan Medical School. The value of their contributions to the practice of medicine in America over the past 150 years is incalculable, and I am confident that they will continue to be on the cutting edge of medicine advances in the 21st century. Mr. President, the faculty, staff, alumni and students of the University of Michigan Medical School can take pride in their many important achievements of the School's first 150 years. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting the accomplishments of the Medical School's first century and a half and in wishing it continued success for the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the dedication of the Second Temple period Triple Gate Monumental Stairs and Observation Plaza which will take place this weekend in Jerusalem. This is a new site in the Jerusalem Archaeological Park which has been developed by the Israel Antiquities Authority, focusing on the southern wall of the Temple Mount Enclosure. This restoration project has been dedicated and supported by Dorothy Davidson Gerson and Byron Gerson in loving memory of Sarah and Ralph Davidson. The dedication ceremony for Gerson Observation Plaza will take place on Sunday, October 3 and will be attended by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert among many others. The Triple Gate and the Double Gate, also known as the Huldah Gates, were a key entrance to the Temple Mount for pilgrims during biblical times. This area of the southern wall was badly damaged following the destruction of the Second Temple. The western Huldah Gate, or Double Gate, now lies below the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The eastern Huldah Gate, or Triple Gate, consisted of three arched entryways at the time of the Second Temple. Now parts of the threshold and the doorjamb are all that remain of the Triple Gate. In front of the Triple Gate was once a monumental staircase. Much of this staircase has now been reconstructed affording visitors the opportunity to envision the southern entrances to the Temple Mount during the Second Temple period. This important archaeological restoration effort would not have been possible without the generous support of Dorothy Davidson Gerson and Byron Gerson. They have made possible an extraordinary view of an ancient treasure which has transcendent meaning. I know my Senate colleagues join me in honoring this historic event and thanking Dorothy Davidson Gerson and Byron Gerson for their extraordinary efforts.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week in Michigan, a coalition of members in the House of Representatives introduced a comprehensive package of gun safety legislation. The principal sponsors of this package are State Representatives Laura Baird, Gilda Jacobs and Samuel Thomas II, three leaders in the state of Michigan on making our state safer for children. The legislation introduced in the Michigan State House is designed to keep kids alive in Michigan and safe from gun violence. It would create gun-free zones in areas such as schools, day care centers, churches, libraries, hospitals and sports arenas; make Michigan the eighteenth state to enact a child access prevention law, requiring that trigger locks be sold with handguns; close the gun show loophole by requiring that unlicensed dealers be subject to the same standards as licensed dealers; and limit individuals to one handgun purchase a month. This legislation, if enacted, would make Michigan one of the most responsible gun safety states in the country. By taking firearms out of the hands of minors and closing loopholes that permit criminals easy access to weapons, Lansing will send a clear message to Michigan mothers and fathers that the state is acting to protect children from gun violence. This legislation is a far cry from the legislation the Michigan Legislature moved forward with last spring. That NRA-backed legislation, designed to loosen the state's law on carrying concealed handguns sailed through the state Legislature only to be rejected by the citizens of Michigan. Michigan's citizens demanded that their lawmakers, enforce stricter, not looser laws, when it comes to gun safety and the protection of their children. The people in Michigan united to reject that bill last spring and I hope they will again unite to seek action from their lawmakers, and urge them to pass this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquent leadership and his determination to keep this issue of affordable housing in front of us. We have 5 million American households that have either inadequate or unaffordable housing. We have 2 million of those families with children, and 1 million of them are seniors. Each one of our communities is faced with this kind of a shortfall. We have a waiting list of over 1 million people for the vouchers, and this amendment will add a few. There are three realities about which we are talking. One is a reality out on the street. That is the reality which millions of families face that do not have affordable housing or adequate housing. We have a budget reality which is driven by allocations through our appropriations subcommittees. This subcommittee has labored mightily to see what it could do with a very inadequate--totally inadequate-- allocation. It has done an amazingly good job in fighting for at least a reasonably adequate number. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee for what they have done, for the fight they have waged. It has been a long fight, and I know it has been a hard fight. They were shorted severely at the beginning and less severely now. Nonetheless, they have been shorted, and that means America has been shorted. The third reality is the conference, and that is the reality to which the Senator from Massachusetts made reference in closing. In supporting his effort to add back half of the vouchers which were requested by the administration for section 8, I can only add my voice, far less eloquently than his, to the hope that our chairman and our ranking member in conference will strive to find a way to do some justice for section 8 housing this year. Again, I thank him and thank both of our floor managers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about President Clinton's veto of the Republican-sponsored $792 billion tax cut. I commend the President for vetoing this bill because it would have taken us down the wrong path: The path to huge budget deficits; The path to higher interest rates; and The path that fails to protect Medicare and Social Security; In vetoing this bill, the President has taken us down the fiscally responsible path toward: Paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt; Lowering interest rates and continuing our economic growth; and Protecting Medicare and Social Security in anticipation of the baby boom generation. Republicans claim the projected surplus over the next ten years is large enough to give taxpayers a $792 billion tax cut and still make $500 billion worth of investments in domestic priorities. They claim that there is an estimated $1.4 trillion worth of surplus funds available for tax breaks and whatever else needs attention. But their surplus projection is based on a fantastic, unrealistic, and unwise assumption about domestic discretionary spending: It is based on the assumption that Congress will enact drastic cuts in domestic services over the next ten years . The New Republican Baseline is the amount of Total Discretionary Spending over the next ten years as figured by the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Senator Domenici. It is the level of spending that Senator Domenici said on the Senate floor on July 29, 1999 would allow for the Republican tax cut and $505 billion to be added back. It was also posted on the Budget Committee Website. This proposal assumes that Congress will cut discretionary spending in accord with the budget caps through 2002 and then freeze discretionary spending at 2002 levels for the years 2003 through 2009. In other words, while the price of a home, car, food goes up; while the cost of health care and tuition go up, the level of domestic services such as Head Start, student loans and economic development grants remains frozen in nominal dollars. A freeze in nominal dollars means a decrease in real dollars. So the Republicans are proposing real, severe cuts in domestic services in order to make their tax cut seem feasible. Huge cuts--tens of billions of dollars below current 1999 levels--are totally unrealistic (and a bad idea). This chart shows that the Republican proposed reductions in domestic services defy history. This chart shows the trend in domestic discretionary services over the last 15 years (in terms of actual outlays) in real 1999 dollars. The trend--(regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans controlled Congress) is upward--and sharply upward over the last ten years--during a period of serious efforts to reign in spending. Looking forward, the trend (on which the Republican tax cut and proposed investments in domestic priorities are based) is sharply downward with domestic services slashed by over a third by the year 2009. A reversal in domestic discretionary services of this size just won't happen--and it shouldn't happen--we shouldn't slash head start, and Pell grants, and community development block grants, and safe drinking water programs by tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years. And history tells us we won't. The current budget process tells us we won't: Newspaper editorials across the country are chiding Congress for already having spent next year's surplus. I support the President's veto because it recognizes our collective responsibility to get America's fiscal house in order and because the Republican tax cut plan and the assumptions that underlie it are unwise, unrealistic and would have squandered this historic opportunity. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the chart to which I referred.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota will yield for a unanimous consent.

Mr. LEVIN. I add that Senator Wellstone take whatever number of minutes he wishes to summarize. That comes off my 10 minutes. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I know how difficult it is. He is into some very important material, and it is an intrusion, but it accommodates a number of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very interesting that we have had such a focus on Congress having the power rather than the bureaucracy having the power. Many of us worked very hard in this body, including, I believe, the Senator from Texas, to make sure Congress would have the power to review regulation and to review rules. We have a Congressional Accountability Act. It is pretty new. We do not use it very often, but it is there. For 60 days after the Interior Department adopts a rule, if we will let them adopt the rule, we have the power to override that rule by expedited procedure. So if my good friend from Texas really wants Congress to be in the position that we can override the rule if we ever permit the rule to be adopted, we have that power. We worked hard to get that power in law. It took us many years to get that power in law. It is called congressional accountability, congressional review, and the rulemaking process that the Interior Department is following is a rulemaking process that we told them to follow. We are not going to let them finish it, apparently. The argument we now hear is we are not going to let them finish it because we have the power. We should have the power, not the bureaucracy. The problem with that argument is it ignores the fact that if we did let them finish, which we should, their rulemaking process, we would have the power to override a rule of the Department of the Interior. For 60 days we have expedited procedures that will permit us to override their rule. So that argument does not wash. The part of this that really intrigues me the most is what so-called integrated oil companies have been able to get away with by basically setting their own prices instead of using market price. I was really intrigued by this. I was not into this issue until a few months ago, really. I started reading some editorials. I started reading the congressional speeches here in the Senate of Senator Boxer and others. I asked the Interior Department. I said: Can you give me some examples where you have an integrated oil company and an independent oil company that are drilling the same oil from public lands and paying us different royalties; where the price they are setting in an integrated company on the one hand, and an independent company on the other hand, are different for the same oil from adjacent lands, both being public lands, of course? Because then, if you have different prices being set for the same oil, you have overwhelming evidence that we are being cheated. Either that or the independents are paying more than they should, which is a pretty unlikely thing because they are going by the market price. They are going by what they get for the oil in an arm's length transaction. So on the one hand, you have independents with an arm's length transaction, which is what the law is. Then we have the integrateds coming along, saying the prices are going to be a lot different based on what they are charging themselves. So I asked the Department of the Interior to take a look at areas on public lands where you have independents and integrated oil companies right next to each other drilling for the same oil. Is there a price differential? Here are the numbers they give me. It is to me powerful evidence that we are being cheated because from the same lease, the same oil field, the same oil, in 6 months in 1999, we get different prices, and in every case the price that is being set by the integrated company is less than the market price which was established by the independent in its arm's length transaction. How do we justify this? How does an integrated company justify that? In January 1999, three different fields: Colorado, New Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. Sales price, dollars per barrel, the independent: $12.43. That was the market price. That was the price they were paid on the market for that oil. The same lease, same oil field, same oil the integrated company is basing their royalty to us on: $11.83. February, the independent, arm's length transaction, getting $11.97 and paying a royalty based on that. What does the integrated company base its royalty on? When it sells it to itself: $11.36. March of 1999, Colorado, same lease, same field, same oil in terms of quality, you have the same oil. The independent, he is basing the royalty to us on $14.60. The integrated company is basing its royalty to us on $14.08. April, same story; May, same story; June, same story. That's Colorado, the first 6 months of 1999. I asked them to give me some examples. I told them not to pick and choose; give me examples which are typical examples where you have oil sales, same lease, same field, same quality oil next to each other. That is in what I am interested. This is the New Mexico field. It has the same kind of price structure. The independent sells it for $11.74. The integrated company is paying us on $9.83. In February, New Mexico, the independent company paid, arm's length transaction, $11.53. The integrated company is basing a royalty to us on $10.16. Something is fundamentally wrong here. The Senator from California and others, it seems to me, have demonstrated in a very clear, dramatic fashion that something is wrong, but when you break it down and ask the Interior Department to give us some more evidence, give us evidence of the differences in the amount on which royalties are based, where the field is the same field, where the lease is the same field--these are public lands. This oil does not belong to the oil companies; it belongs to the people of the United States. They are on our land. This is not a tax; it is a royalty for our property. We own it. It is ours and we let the oil companies drill on it. What did they come up with? Gulf of Mexico, same field, same lease, the independent company, arm's length transaction gets $11.19. The integrated company, selling to itself, is basing its royalty on $10.49. There is a lot of evidence of these miscalculations by these integrated companies so they pay less royalties. What could be more compelling evidence when you have oil being drawn from the same field, the same lease right next to each other on a public land? How much more compelling evidence do we need before we finally say to the Interior Department: Go ahead, do your rule. In closing, I remind our colleagues of one other thing and it is where I started. What we hear from the Senator from Texas is we should do this, not the bureaucracy. We have the power to override the bureaucracy under this new process which so many of us worked so hard to put in place so we are accountable, not the bureaucracy. It used to be called legislative review. Before that, we thought we had a legislative veto, but that was overridden by the Supreme Court. Now it is called the Congressional Accountability Act. For 60 days, if we will let the Interior Department follow the process, we then have the power, under expedited procedures, to override any final rule they may adopt. This effort is to truncate that, to cut it off so they cannot follow the rulemaking process. That is what this effort is all about. What it will stop is the elimination of this absurdity. It is absurd for the same oil, for the same field to be charged at different amounts. It is obvious what is going on. The independent companies, because they are selling on the market, have a very clear objective, outside way of determining market value.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me state the unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gramm have 10 minutes at this time, then I have 10 minutes, the floor go back to Senator Wellstone until 4:15, then it go to Senator Hutchison or her designee at 4:15, and any time remaining to Senator Wellstone on his hour at 4:15 that he retain.

Mr. LEVIN. Let me state the unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--if the Senator from Minnesota would be able to do this--that the Senator from Minnesota yield within the next few minutes to the Senator from Texas for 10 minutes, and then to the Senator from Michigan for 10 minutes, and then, if the Senator from Minnesota is still on the floor after giving us the time, the floor go back to the Senator from Minnesota until 4:15, at which point the floor would be yielded to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, or her designee.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that the Senate majority leader brought up the bankruptcy reform bill and then immediately filed for cloture on the bill. If this week's cloture motion had passed, debate would have been blocked and relevant amendments designed to reform the bankruptcy system would have been prohibited from being offered. I was planning to offer an amendment that would have prevented one abuse of the bankruptcy system. My amendment was very straightforward. It would have prohibited manufacturers, distributors and dealers of firearms from discharging debts which are firearm related incurred as a result of judgments against them based on fraud, recklessness, misrepresentation, nuisance, negligence, or product liability. Currently, under the Bankruptcy Code, such persons and companies are able to evade responsibility and ``take advantage of the system.'' That's what Lorcin Engineering Co., a manufacturer of cheap handguns, told Firearms Business it was doing when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1996. At the time, Lorcin was one of the chief manufacturers of ``Saturday Night Specials'' or ``junk guns'' and in 1998, their inexpensive semiautomatic pistol was number two on the list of guns traced to crime scenes by ATF. Lorcin's low quality guns, which caused innumerable deaths because of their cheap construction and easy availability, were the basis of more than two dozen product liability lawsuits. Once Lorcin decided they could not defend their practices against the multiple liability claims filed against them, they decided to protect themselves by using the bankruptcy system to settle these lawsuits for pennies on the dollar and be exempted from an additional lawsuit filed by the city of New Orleans. Lorcin was able to evade judgments by filing for bankruptcy, and other manufacturers are lining up in bankruptcy court to follow their lead. Davis Industries, another manufacturer of Saturday Night Specials, has also sought refuge in bankruptcy court, perhaps hoping to dismiss the wrongful-death and personal injury suits filed against them by individuals and the multiple lawsuits filed against them by local governments. Currently, there are eighteen categories of debt that are nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. The Code makes certain debts nondischargeable when there is an overriding public purpose. One specific example is the nondischargeability of debt incurred by a debtor's operation of a motor vehicle while legally intoxicated. This addition to the Bankruptcy Code demonstrates Congress' unwillingness to allow debtors to escape debts created by illegal and improper conduct. Debts for death or personal injury resulting from unsafe firearms and their negligent distribution should also be nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. Like debts incurred by drunk driving, Congress must send a message that it will not permit debtors to escape debts incurred by improper conduct. I urge the Senate to begin a reasonable debate on bankruptcy reform that truly address the abuses of the system. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, an article from the New York Times, showing the link between some gun manufacturers and the abuse of the bankruptcy system.