Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. That is what is happening. What the Interior Department has done for me at my request is to take a look at situations, as the Senator from California said, where we have oil being drilled under the same lease, the same field so we know it is the same quality oil, next to each other by two different companies, one of which is the 5 percent, the integrated company which is setting its own price, and the other by one of the independents, and to compare the market prices which are set on which the royalty is based. I told them to give me typical examples. Do not pick and choose. Give me typical examples. The typical examples are on the chart. They show a range of differences in sale prices from 10 cents minimum to $2.99 per barrel. When you put that over the entire country for one company, you come up with this kind of a situation where you have a market price the independents are paying and then you have a posted price by an integrated company, which is below that consistently. It is wrong, and we have to end it. The Senator from California is leading an effort to end that. We ought to permit the Interior Department to complete its rulemaking process, and then, if a majority of this Congress thinks they have not done this properly, we have a way to override it. We are the final determinants, not the bureaucracy, and we have that power. We, obviously, do not want to see what this will result in because some of us very clearly want this situation to continue. It is an unfair situation to the taxpayers. It is discriminatory against companies that pay royalties, by the way, based on arm's length market price setting. It is not even fair to them. It is not fair to the States that also get part of these resources. We are not talking about a tax. This is not a business or an individual being taxed. This is oil that is owned by the public. The business is owned by an individual. It is a private business. The oil being drilled is publicly owned oil. So there is a major difference between this and a tax.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank again the very able, very distinguished chairman of our committee for the bipartisan approach with which he leads our committee. It has been a consistent pattern for him since he has been in the Senate. We came here together, so we have a lot of knowledge and awareness of each other. He has really made an extraordinary contribution to this body and to the well- being of the Nation. I commend him for it. This bill is an important bill. It is really two bills. It is the Department of Defense bill, an authorization bill, but it is also a Department of Energy reorganization bill. It is the second bill that is the troubling one. I have resolved to vote for this bill because I believe, on balance, it is at least possible that the reorganization can be workable and that the Secretary of the Department of Energy will be able to manage the Department and we will be able to hold him accountable. I am going to go into that a little more in a few moments, but before I do, I want to talk a bit about the Department of Defense part of this bill because, as the chairman says, this is a very important contribution to the security of this Nation. By increasing pay, by improving retirement, by enhancing retention, we are making, we hope, a significant contribution to the security of this Nation. The morale of our troops will be given a boost when they see a bigger pay raise than they expected. The morale of our troops will be boosted when they see a better retirement package than they previously had. The morale of our troops, and indeed of all of our citizens, should be boosted when they see that the readiness of our forces is given a boost from this bill. So the defense part of this bill, I believe, makes a significant contribution to the well-being of the men and women in the military and to the security of this Nation. The problem we had on this bill came from the DOE reorganization because the conference report is significantly different from what passed the Senate. What passed the Senate, after a great deal of debate, was a reorganization of the Department of Energy which reflected the recommendation of the Rudman panel that there be a semiautonomous Department of Energy. I think most of us favored that. I surely do. But in a number of respects, this conference report goes beyond what the Senate passed by an overwhelming vote. And when we referred the language in the conference report to the Congressional Research Service and asked them to do an analysis for us, to tell us what the differences were and whether or not they really were relevant, whether or not they really were significant, whether or not they really limited the ability of the Secretary of Energy to run his Department, the CRS gave us their objective view of the conference report language. There are some parts of that CRS review which should make us all pause, and which made me pause. The Congressional Research Service concluded, for instance, that the Secretary's authority over this new nuclear security administration, ``may be problematic, in view of the overall scheme of the proposed legislation.'' The CRS said the language in the conference report raises questions about ``whether it is possible, or desirable in practice, to split policy and operations in organizational terms.'' And the CRS report asks whether the practice of insulating the staff offices of this new entity from the departmental staff offices ``effectively vitiate[s] the meaning of the earlier provisions assigning the Secretary full authority and control over any function of the Administration and its personnel.'' Those are significant questions and potentially significant problems. On the other hand, there is language in this conference report which says that this new entity is established ``within the Department of Energy,'' and therefore it is subject, obviously, to the direction and control of the Secretary. The conference report says that the Secretary of Energy--not the new head of this entity, an Under Secretary, but the Secretary himself--is responsible for ``developing the security, counterintelligence, and intelligence policies of the Department.'' The conference report says that the Secretary of Energy--not the new head of the entity, who is an Under Secretary, but the Secretary--is given continuing responsibility for the security and counterintelligence problems within the Department's nuclear energy defense programs. And there are a number of other provisions similar to that. So it seems to me one can at least fairly argue that, given that authority to establish policies, one will then have the authority to ensure that policies are carried out. So we are going to have to monitor very carefully this new entity as it is implemented, assuming the President, of course, does not veto it. If the President does veto it, there is no certainty by any stretch of the imagination that the veto would be sustained. I am voting for this bill. I am always open to the argument of a President, if he decided to veto it, as to why the veto, in fact, was dealt. But based on what is before us, it seems to me there is at least a reasonable prospect that the Secretary of Energy will be able to manage this Department. We intend to create a semiautonomous entity--not a semiaccountable entity but a semiautonomous entity. We intend to create here a semiautonomous entity, not a semiaccountable Secretary of Energy. We want that Secretary to be fully accountable, which means he must be able to manage, control, and direct his Department, the policies in that Department, and the implementation of those policies. So I close by thanking our staff. I will not thank the pages since they apparently owe us one, since we kept them here late enough last night so they were relieved from some other duties. But I thank our staff for their great work in making this bill a reality. I shall vote for this bill. I, again, thank the chairman for his reaching out to all members of the committee for contributions. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend my good friend from Virginia for his work on this bill and his leadership in the committee. It is a bipartisan style of leadership, and it is very productive. I commend him on it. It sets the kind of style which I hope will permeate this body in all the things we do, but it is absolutely essential in the national security area that we act in this way. He carries on a great tradition in doing so. The conference report for the national defense for the fiscal year 2000 is a good bill, with one problem, and that problem is the provisions relating to the reorganization of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex. Because of the deficiencies in the DOE reorganization provisions, I declined to sign the conference report on this bill, but, at the time, I stated I would decide how to vote on the bill after a more careful analysis and a public airing of the provisions. Back to the Department of Defense side of the bill because this is almost two bills but one conference report. We have a Department of Defense authorization bill, in its more traditional style, addressing the issues which we typically address, and we have this new kid on the block, this Department of Energy reorganization part of this bill, which is the problematic part. The Department of Defense portion of the bill is a good agreement. It was reached through bipartisan and cooperative discussion among ourselves in the Senate and with our House colleagues. This conference report should go--and will go, in my judgment--a long way to meet the priorities established for our military by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I very much agree with our good friend, Senator Warner, as to what he said about this part of the bill and the priorities it sets, how it spends the additional funds. In accordance with the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution, the bill includes an $8.3 billion increase in budget authority above the level provided in the President's budget. Unlike the budget increases in past years, the added money in this bill will be spent in a manner in which the Department of Defense indicates it has the highest priorities. That is a very important point. The chairman made the point in his remarks that, relative to the additional funds, we solicited from the Department what their highest priorities are and tried to reflect those priorities. The bottom line is that this bill will go a long way to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, it will improve the readiness of our military, and it will continue the process of modernizing our Armed Forces to meet the threats of the future. Some of the add-ons, as I have indicated, the so-called increases, represent the highest-priority readiness items identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including an added $788 million for real property maintenance, something we frequently neglect and delay but which is essential--real property maintenance is not a glamorous item, but it is very important to quality of life and to readiness--$380 million was added for base operations; $172 million for ammunition; $112 million for training center support; $151 million for depot maintenance. These are items that too frequently get shortchanged. In each case, these items will significantly enhance the ability of our Armed Forces to carry out their full range of missions. As far as the members of the military are concerned, this is probably the most important Defense Authorization Act in recent years because of the improvements it will make in pay and benefits for the women and men in uniform. The bill includes the triad of pay and retirement initiatives sought by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs: A 4.8-percent military pay raise for fiscal year 2000, reform of the military pay table to increase pay for midcareer NCOs and officers, and changes to the military retirement system. These changes should go a long way in addressing recruiting and retention problems in the services. My greatest disappointment in this area is that we were not able to enact the GI bill improvements that were proposed by Senator Cleland this year. I think every Member of this body wants to do everything they can to ensure the men and women in uniform receive fair compensation for the service they provide to their country. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a persuasive case that the military is facing real recruiting and retention problems and that improvements in pay and benefits in the conference report are a critical element of any plan to address the recruiting and retention problems. There are other important provisions in this bill as well. For example, the bill reported by the Armed Services Committee provides full funding for the DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program with Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, although it would terminate work on the Russian chemical weapons destruction facility. Unfortunately, two of the three companion programs at the Department of Energy, the initiative for proliferation prevention and the nuclear cities initiatives, received less funding than requested by the administration. The bill also contains some unfortunate restrictions on those two programs at the Department of Energy which are going to limit the effectiveness of these programs. Nonetheless, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and those related Department of Energy programs are a cornerstone of our relationship with Russia, and although the DOE programs were not funded at the level requested, nonetheless they are funded at a significant level and these programs play an important role in our national security by reducing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction from Russia and rogue nations with which Russia may form closer ties in the absence of those programs. There were other disappointments as well. In addition to the reduction of the requests for the DOE programs that I mentioned, Senator Well-stone's amendment to provide some relief for a group of veterans who contracted serious illnesses after being exposed to radiation while participating in nuclear tests or while serving at Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the war, adopted in the Senate, was not accepted in conference because when we got to conference, the House conferees said the amendment would increase the so-called mandatory or entitlement spending, and they had no jurisdiction on that issue. As a result, they would not agree to include this provision in the conference report. That is a disappointment. It is a disappointment to me, and I think it will be a disappointment to those veterans who were so exposed. But the conference report, again, has so many important provisions that we should look at the whole DOD report and weigh that as a whole. When we do that, it seems to me the Department of Defense portion of this bill makes a very large contribution to national security and the effective management of the Department of Defense--including other provisions such as the provision establishing new procedures to protect the military's access to essential frequency spectrum; such as the provision requiring the Department to establish specific budget reporting procedures for all funds to combat terrorism, both at home and abroad; such as a series of provisions to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health care provided to service men and women under the TRICARE program; such as provisions promoting reform of the Department of Defense financial management systems; such as the provisions promoting more effective management of the defense laboratories and test and evaluation facilities; such as provisions extending the Department's small disadvantaged business goals and its mentor-protegee program for small disadvantaged businesses for 3 years. As I indicated, this conference report is really two bills. It is a DOD authorization bill, but it is also a reorganization of the entire Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex. It does the latter in a way which is inconsistent with the bill that was passed by the Senate by a vote of 96-1 earlier this year, inconsistent in a number of important ways. It goes beyond anything that has even been considered by the House of Representatives. While there is a broad consensus that we need to address the management and accountability programs at DOE, particularly in the areas of security and counterintelligence, the provisions in this bill could undermine Secretary Richardson's efforts to secure our nuclear secrets and make the Department even more difficult to manage than it is today. That is the question we struggle with and that I and a number of the members of our committee have struggled with, and I know Members of this body are struggling with that as well--the final provisions that were put in the conference report to try to analyze: What is the difference, if any, between these provisions in the conference report and the Senate provisions which we adopted to implement the semiautonomous agency recommendation of Senator Rudman? So I wrote a letter to the Congressional Research Service requesting an independent assessment of the impact of the conference report on the ability of the Secretary of Energy to manage the Department's nuclear weapons programs. The CRS memorandum prepared in response to my letter this month raises serious questions about the impact of the Department of Energy reorganization provisions in this conference report. The CRS concluded that the Secretary's authority over the new National Nuclear Security Administration ``may be problematic in view of the overall scheme of the proposed legislation.'' For instance, the CRS memorandum raises the question about ``whether it is possible, or desirable in practice, to split policy and operations in organizational terms''; and asks whether the practice of insulating administration staff offices from departmental staff offices ``effectively vitiate[s] the meaning of the earlier provisions assigning the Secretary full authority and control over any function of the Administration and its personnel.'' The CRS memorandum also points out the legislation would permit the administrator of the new National Nuclear Security Agency to ``establish Administration-specific policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary of Energy.'' And the CRS points out that ``This procedure reverses the general practice in the departments and to the extent that the Secretary is not the issuing authority, a major tool of management and accountability is shifted to a subordinate office.'' If this legislation were interpreted, as the CRS indicates it could be interpreted, to undermine the authority of the Secretary, it would have the perverse effect of diffusing responsibility in the Department, leaving reporting channels even more ``convoluted, confusing, and contradictory'' than those observed by the Rudman Commission. I supported the Rudman recommendation and still do. The Rudman recommendation recommends a semiautonomous entity inside the Department of Energy. But what the CRS report does is raise questions about whether or not this language--which is different from the Senate language which was overwhelmingly adopted--in this conference report goes beyond semiautonomous. None of the models of a semiautonomous agency cited by the Rudman Commission in its report--the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Security Agency; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA; or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA--limit the authority of the Cabinet Secretary responsible for the agency as much as these provisions seem to do. However, the ambiguities in this bill may leave open another choice. We are dealing with ambiguities in language. So we have to look at: Are there other interpretations, other choices which may be available in light of these ambiguities? In particular, there is language which can be construed to give authority to the Secretary which might allow him to run this agency, called the Department of Energy, in a way which will provide accountability in the Secretary because he is the one to whom we must look to be accountable. We want him to be able to run the agency. That is why it is called a semiautonomous entity in the Rudman report. They do not recommend an autonomous entity. They recommend a semiautonomous entity. They cite models, the ones I have just indicated, which allow the Secretary of the agency in question to run his agency, including all parts of it, including the semiautonomous parts. There is language in this conference report which remains which does point towards the ability of the Secretary to run his entire agency, to be accountable and responsible for it. I want to just read some of that language. For instance, the new administration--this new entity--is established ``within the Department of Energy'', and is therefore subject to the direction and control of the Secretary. The Secretary of Energy, in this conference report--not the head of the new entity, the under secretary, but the Secretary of Energy--is responsible for ``developing the security, counterintelligence, and intelligence policies of the Department'' under section 214. For instance, the Department's counterintelligence chief, not his subordinate in the new administration, is ``responsible for establishing policy for counterintelligence programs and activities at Department facilities in order to reduce the threat of disclosure or loss of classified and other sensitive information at such facilities'' under section 215. Another example of language pointing toward accountability in the Secretary--where we want it, ultimately, in this Department or any Department--is that the Secretary of Energy, not the new under secretary but the Secretary of Energy himself, is given continuing responsibility for the security and counterintelligence problems within the Department's nuclear energy defense programs by sections 3150, 3152, 3154, and 3164 of the bill. Other language which may give some comfort to those of us who are concerned about the diffusion of accountability in this new language-- not adopted by the Senate, not adopted by the House, but put into the conference report--other language which may hopefully give some comfort is that the Secretary of Energy, not the new under secretary, is given the responsibility for appointing the Chief of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence and the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security within the new administration. I think one can fairly argue that the authority to establish Department-wide policies carries with it the authority to ensure that such policies are carried out. On that basis and on the basis of these other provisions I have just quoted, this legislation could be interpreted to give the Secretary of Energy continuing authority to manage the Department, including the authority to direct and control the new National Nuclear Security Administration. So while it is unfortunate that this bill has confused reporting relationships and blurred lines of authority, I believe a strong Secretary of Energy may be able to overcome these difficulties and address the Department's problems in an effective manner. He should not have to be confronted with these difficulties, but he may be able to overcome them. We will need to continually reexamine these provisions and modify them as appropriate to ensure that the Secretary and the Department have the tools they need to ensure the security of our nuclear deterrent. The National Association of Attorneys General has raised an important concern about this legislation. In two letters dated September 3, 1999, to the President and the congressional leadership, the National Association of Attorneys General states that the DOE reorganization provisions in this bill ``would weaken the existing internal and external oversight structure for DOE's environment, safety, and health operations.'' Here again, the Secretary of Energy may be able to overcome the ambiguities in the bill and exercise strong independent oversight over the new administration, ensuring that applicable laws, regulations, and agreements protecting health, safety, and the environment continue to be enforced. This legislation then may be ratified by the courts consistent with its intent--which we put in the Senate version of this bill--to make no change to existing substantive and procedural mechanisms for enforcing such laws, regulations, and agreements. I wish these flawed DOE reorganization provisions had not been added in conference. As a matter of fact, adding extraneous material in this way is a dubious legislative practice that too often results in unsound legislation. The concerns raised by attorneys general should serve as a reminder to all of us of the hazards of trying to legislate on complex issues in a conference committee convened to deliberate on unrelated matters. I am going to vote for this bill because I believe it is possible that the DOE reorganization provisions can be interpreted in a manner that will permit the sound management of the Department of Energy and because the provisions are a part of what is otherwise a good bill. If the DOE reorganization mandated by this bill proves to create problems, we will then have to consider solutions to those problems in the future. We are going to need to monitor this bill closely as it is implemented. We don't know if the President will or will not veto this bill. Perhaps the President indicated to my good friend from Virginia last night at the meeting. But we do not have any indication as to whether or not the President will veto this bill.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia. We are, indeed, not only old colleagues but dear friends. Mr. President, as I indicated, I will be voting for this bill tomorrow. I believe it is again possible that the reorganization provisions of the Department of Energy can be interpreted in a manner that will permit the Department to be managed soundly. It is my hope that that will be the case. If in fact the President decides to veto this matter--we do not know what he will do--then obviously I, for one, will be willing to consider any arguments and reasoning that might be proposed. But I have no reason to know that that is forthcoming. We just have no indication that in fact a veto is or is not forthcoming. We simply have to do what we, in our best judgment, believe is best. Of course, we are always willing to consider any thoughts or reasoning of the President if and when a veto message is received. Finally, I want to again thank our good chairman. He has put together a bill with provisions in it that are going to make a real difference for the men and women in our military. As the ranking member of this committee, I have worked very closely with him. Republicans and Democrats on this committee don't always agree, but we surely agreed on the end point, which is that the well-being of the men and women in our military and the security of this country has to be first and foremost. It is not a partisan issue. The constructive leadership which our chairman has always provided on so many issues has been part of a great tradition of the Armed Services Committee. As he rightfully points out, our staffs are essential to that contribution. We all strive to make a bipartisan contribution to the security of this Nation. We succeed at times. I am sure we don't succeed at other times, as hard as we try. But we would not succeed to the extent we do but for the staffs who also work on a bipartisan basis. Dave Lyles, Les Brownlee, and all of our staff under their leadership are essential to the successes that we have. I, like the chairman, want to thank our subcommittee chairman and all the members of our committee for their work during the past year, starting with the subcommittee hearings this spring and the good work in this bill that is aimed at improving the quality of life for men and women in the military. Their readiness and their support will indeed have that impact and will have that positive effect we so fervently wish for. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I wish I could.

Mr. LEVIN. I was just going to say that sounds like an invitation to a budget request, and tomorrow morning we will surely try to have one on the chairman's desk.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. There are concerns within the Michigan delegation, Mr. President, that the proposal to close Muskegon may have been due to the Coast Guard's constrained funding and was not necessarily based on an analysis of the safety needs of boaters on Southern Lake Michigan. Mr. President, it would appear premature to close the facility at Muskegon given the investment made by both the Coast Guard and the local community to establish this seasonal facility. In choosing to locate the facility in Muskegon in the first place, the Coast Guard projected large cost savings that would not be fully realized if the station were closed.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that assurance is important and welcome, and I believe I speak for the entire Michigan delegation in thanking the distinguished Chairman for his support and in committing our efforts to assist him in any way he may need to see this provision incorporated into the final Transportation Appropriations Act for FY 2000. Middle Fork Snoqualmie Road

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, students in Detroit are now back in school, just like their peers across the river in Windsor, Ontario. Each classroom of students is going through virtually the same routine. They are writing about their summer vacations, obtaining textbooks, signing up for sports teams, and trying to memorize locker combinations. They are figuring out bus routes, testing new backpacks and worrying about that third period teacher who assigns too much homework. There is just one major difference between the students in Detroit and those in Windsor. Students in Detroit have to worry about guns in school. In the United States, another classroom of children is killed by firearms every two days. That doesn't mean that every few days, there is another Columbine mass murder. But statistics show that each day 13 children die from gunfire, and every two days, the equivalent of a classroom of American children is struck by the tragedy of gun violence. In Windsor, the Canadian town that borders Detroit, there were only 4 firearm homicides in 1997. In Detroit, for that same year, there were 354 firearm homicides. If the population of Detroit and Windsor were equal, the number of firearm deaths would be nearly eighteen times higher in Detroit, a city less than 1,000 yards away. I'd like to include in the Record, an op-ed printed in the USA Today, showing the differences between Canadian and American death rates involving firearms, and specifically the differences between Windsor and Detroit. If there's one thing Congress needs to study this school year, it's how to rewrite the books and end the senseless slaughter of our school children. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Let me quickly comment on the question of highway deaths. The study of USA Today is that 46,000 people have died in crashes that would have survived in larger cars. I have not heard that fact disputed. We have seen a chart which shows that there are fewer highway deaths and that we have better fuel economy, but that chart doesn't show the two are causally connected. Indeed, the fewer highway deaths may come from seatbelts, a greater effort on the anti-alcoholism campaign, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, a number of other causes. But the outside figure, not the auto industry, not the unions, not the supplier, not the insurance industry, which opposes this amendment, the outside survey done by USA Today says 46,000 people lost their lives who would not have lost their lives but for this CAFE approach. When we look at the resolution, we don't see any reference to safety. We don't see any reference to the discriminatory impact on domestics that have a different mix in their fleets. We only see a reference to fuel. That is the one factor at which this resolution looks. Then at the end it makes it very clear what it is driving at--talking about driving. This resolution is aimed at one thing: to increase CAFE standards. This isn't just ``let's have a study, look at the impact on safety, look at the discriminatory impact on domestic production.'' This isn't just let's have a study. This is the sense of the Senate that the Senate should not recede to a House provision which prevents an increase in CAFE standards, not which prevents a study. This resolution, by every single provision in its whereas clauses, is driving us towards an increase in CAFE standards, without consideration of safety impacts or the discriminatory impact on domestic production. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment before us is very simply to increase CAFE, despite all the flaws with the CAFE system. This is not just a study as is being suggested. The purpose of this amendment is very clear from the wording of every single whereas clause and every resolve clause: it is to increase CAFE, despite the many flaws in the current CAFE system. If anybody has any doubt about what the purpose of this amendment is, I urge them to read it, and particularly the last paragraph which urges the Senate not to recede to section 320 of the bill as passed by the House of Representatives, which prevents an increase in CAFE standards. Now, some have said all this amendment does is provide for a study. Well, this is a study whose results have been prejudged and preordained, by the authors of this amendment, because there is not one word in this amendment about safety concerns, as the Senator from Missouri and my colleague from Michigan have talked about, or about the increase in the number of deaths which have resulted from CAFE. Those are not our allegations but safety experts' allegations. There is not one word in this amendment about the loss of American jobs and the discriminatory impact of CAFE against domestic production. I will get into that in a moment. This isn't just a study we are talking about. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution specifically says that the Senate should not recede to a section in the House bill which prevents an increase in CAFE standards. It doesn't say anything about not receding to a section which prevents a study. It doesn't talk about a study which looks at highway safety, impact on domestic employment, favoritism toward imports, discriminatory impacts on domestic manufacturers and workers. It doesn't talk about that at all. There is not a word about any of these issues in this amendment--only about increasing the CAFE standards. There are many flaws in the CAFE approach. My colleagues have already gone into some of those flaws at length. But first I want to again quote, very briefly, from the National Academy of Sciences' automotive fuel economy study, so that people don't think opposition to this amendment comes only from folks who have a lot of automobile production in their State--although we do and we are proud of it, and we are determined that it be treated fairly and sensibly. We surely stand for that, and we do so proudly. But this is the National Academy of Sciences speaking here. The National Academy of Sciences said the following in this automotive fuel economy study: The CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful reconsideration of the approach. ``Defects that are sufficiently grievous.'' There is not a word about studying those defects in this amendment. I have looked really hard through this amendment. I read it a couple of times this afternoon. I can't find anything about studying those defects that are ``sufficiently grievous,'' according to the National Academy of Sciences--that they should be part of the study. The purpose of this resolution is to increase CAFE, to bring about the result that CAFE is increased. Now, why not do that? Why not increase CAFE? Sure, let's just increase the number from 20 to 25, or 30 to 35, or 35 to 40. Why not? We will save fuel. The answer is, because there are a number of other considerations that have to be looked at, which weren't looked at when this CAFE system was put into place. CAFE has had a discriminatory impact on the domestic industry and has had a horrendous effect on safety and resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. Now, the safety issue has been discussed this afternoon, but I want to just highlight one or two parts of it, although the Senator from Missouri has just spoken to it. There was a USA Today study. This isn't an auto industry study. This isn't an auto supplier study. This isn't the UAW study. This is a study by USA Today looking at statistics on automobile highway deaths. Here is what the USA Today study found. They found that in the 24 years since a landmark law to conserve fuel was passed, big cars have shrunk to less-safe sizes, and small cars have poured on the road, and, as a result, 46,000 people have died in crashes. They would have survived in bigger, heavier cars, according to the USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975 when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed. The law and the corporate average fuel economy standards it imposed have improved fuel efficiency. The average passenger vehicle on U.S. roads gets 20 miles per gallon versus 14 miles per gallon in 1975. But the cost has been, roughly, 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained, this analysis shows. Is it worth looking at fuel economy? Of course it is. Is it worth looking at 46,000 deaths? Is it worth putting that on the scale and at least looking at it? It sure ought to be. There is not a word about that in this resolution, nothing about safety. We are told this amendment is only about a study. Well, if so, it is the most one-sided study I have ever seen. Now, it has been argued: Wait a minute, aren't these deaths the result of small cars running into big vehicles? Again, the study answers that. Tellingly, it says most small-crash deaths involve only small cars--56 percent in 1997, from the latest Government data. They run into something else, such as a tree, or into one another. In contrast, just 1 percent--according to this article--of small-car deaths occurred in crashes with midsize or big sport utility vehicles in 1997, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, according to the agency that enforces the safety rules. That is one of the major problems with CAFE--the safety problem, the loss of life. There are other problems as well. I would like to spend a few of the minutes allotted to me to talk about the discrimination of this system against domestic production. One of the many problems with CAFE is that it looks at the entire fleet. It looks at the average of the manufacturers' fleet. That fleet could be predominantly small in size. It could be predominantly medium in size. It could be predominantly large in size. It doesn't make any difference what your mix is; you must meet the same corporate fleet average. If you have produced, for instance, historically many small vehicles, then because of the way the CAFE rules are jiggered, there are no effective limits on how many large vehicles you can sell. But if historically you have produced larger vehicles, then it has a tremendous impact on your production and a penalty for the production of more. The result of this is that if, as in the case with the imports, you have focused on lighter vehicles rather than the heavier vehicles, which are very much now in demand, CAFE has no effect whatsoever on your production or on your sales. But if you are a domestic manufacturer that has focused on the larger vehicles, it has a huge effect on you and on the number of jobs you might have. There is no logic or fairness to that kind of approach. CAFE didn't say you have to increase by 10 percent the efficiency of your light vehicles, or your medium-size vehicles, or your heavier vehicles. It says: Take your whole fleet together and reach a certain standard. Some people say: Well, aren't the imports more fuel efficient? The answer is no. Pound for pound, there is no difference between an imported vehicle and a domestic vehicle. A domestic vehicle is probably a little bit more fuel efficient. Take two vehicles of the same size. Take a GM and Toyota pickup truck--the GM Sierra, and the Toyota Tundra. They both weigh about the same. These are their highway ratings: 18 miles per gallon for the GM vehicle, and 17 miles per gallon for the Toyota vehicle. The GM vehicle is more fuel efficient than the Toyota. These are the same size vehicles. Now we are comparing apples and apples--not fleet averages which are apples and oranges, but apples and apples. The city rating is the same thing. The GM Sierra has a 15-miles-per-gallon rating. The Toyota Tundra has a 14-miles-per-gallon rating. So the discriminatory impact does not have anything to do with the efficiency of vehicles of the same size since, if anything, the domestic vehicle is at least as efficient as the import when you compare the same size vehicles. Then where is the discriminatory impact? The discriminatory impact arises because the import manufacturers have tended to focus on the smaller vehicles instead of the larger vehicles. They have room to sell as many large vehicles as they want without any impact. CAFE does not affect them. Any manufacturer that has focused on the smaller vehicles instead of the larger suffers no impact when CAFE goes up. Let's go back to that Tundra and that Sierra. How many more vehicles could General Motors sell? These are the same size vehicles. With the GM vehicle being slightly more fuel efficient than the Toyota vehicle, how many more can GM sell under CAFE? None. How many more can Toyota sell? Over 300,000 more. Does that do anything for the air? It is costing American jobs. It doesn't do a thing for the air. All it does is tell people if they want to buy a vehicle, a large vehicle, they have to buy the imported vehicle, and not the domestic one. The domestic manufacturer is penalized if it is produced under the CAFE approach. CAFE was designed in a way--I don't think intentionally, and I pray to God it wasn't--but it was designed in a way which has a discriminatory impact on the domestic producer because of the way in which their fleets happened to be designed historically--because of the type of cars they sold historically--and not because the imported vehicle is more fuel efficient. It isn't. These numbers are typical. If you have two vehicles of equal size, one import and one domestic, they are about the same in terms of fuel efficiency. So when you increase CAFE, all you are saying is buy an import. That is what this thing drives people to do. The import manufacturer isn't penalized. There is no limit effectively on how many larger vehicles the import manufacturers can sell. It bites on the domestic manufacturers--not on the imports. That is a huge effect on jobs in America, with no advantage to the air. Do we think it does good to the air to tell people to buy yourself a Tundra instead of a Sierra? Does that do anything for the air? Quite the opposite. It hurts the air. The Tundra is not as fuel efficient as the Sierra. Yet there is no penalty whatsoever under CAFE for the import manufacturer selling basically an unlimited number of heavy vehicles. We have a system in place now which has had a very negative effect on safety and an increase in the number of highway deaths. These are not our figures but figures of people who are on the outside looking at the statistics of the highway safety folks. It has had a negative effect in terms of domestic versus imports, which is discriminatory. Again, I want to emphasize this. It is a very important point. Some people think the imports are more fuel efficient. They are not. It is the key point. They are not more fuel efficient--slightly less; if I had to characterize--there is no difference, basic difference, pound for pound. What does this amendment do? It expands the current system. We have CAFE; let's increase the CAFE standards. Let's not even look at impact on safety, increased highway deaths, or discriminatory impact on domestic production. That is not referred to in this amendment. Just fuel. That is it. But CAFE's discriminatory impact takes such a narrow vision, a narrow view on jobs in America. I hope this amendment is defeated. It is pointing in a very narrow direction, in a direction which ignores the discriminatory impact on jobs in America. It ignores safety issues and focuses on one piece of an issue, ignoring totally the other parts. Finally, the Government and the private sector or private industry have put together a partnership for new vehicles. This partnership is focusing on new technologies and new materials, trying to see if we cannot find ways to have larger vehicles with higher fuel economy. This partnership is looking at lightweight materials, advanced batteries, fuel cells, hybrid electric propulsion systems; experimental concepts sometimes, but things which will--in a cooperative way--achieve the kind of goal which CAFE theoretically was aimed at achieving. This partnership approach for a new generation of vehicles is working. It is in operation now. It is the right way to go. The Government contribution to this partnership has been about $220 million a year. The private sector's annual contribution to this partnership has been slightly under $1 billion a year. We have this investment in a partnership, in a new generation of vehicles which is aimed at achieving significant improvements in fuel efficiency without the downsides, which have been described here--the negative safety impacts and the negative effects on domestic production. That partnership is now in its fourth year. We should allow that partnership to proceed. It is on a cooperative track, aimed at achieving goals without such negative side effects. I hope the Senate will reject this resolution and will keep on the partnership track which is being so productively followed. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Does this Senator from Michigan have any time remaining?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true champion for working people from my home State of Michigan, Frank Garrison, who is retiring this month from his position as president of the Michigan AFL-CIO after more than 40 years in the labor movement. In many ways, Frank's life story is the story of the labor movement itself over these past 65 years. Born Franklin Delano Garrison in 1934, during the depths of the Great Depression, he was named for the President who gave hope to millions of working Americans and whose Works Projects Administration provided Frank's father with a job. At the age of 10, Frank entered the workforce himself, shoveling coal into his school's boilers so his brothers and sisters could eat lunch at school. While these early years taught Frank the value of work, they also taught him that to achieve their piece of the American dream, working people needed strong advocates, both in the workplace and in government. He joined the United Auto Workers in 1952 working at the Saginaw Steering Gear plant in Saginaw, Michigan. Once in the union, the same work ethic that filled that school boiler with coal helped Frank rise through the ranks. He held several positions in his local and his region on his way to becoming the UAW's Legislative Director in 1976 and the Executive Director of the Union's Community Action Program in 1982. During those years, he played a key role in many election campaigns and even helped an upstart former President of the Detroit City Council win a seat in the United States Senate. In 1986, after the sudden death of Michigan AFL-CIO President Sam Fishman, Frank was selected president by the AFL-CIO's General Board. Throughout the thirteen years he has served in that position he has upheld the finest traditions of the labor movement. In an era when special interests tried to dominate the political debate, Frank's was a voice that spoke for the broad interest of working people, whether or not they ever carried a union card--fighting for a higher minimum wage, for health care for all, to strengthen Social Security and Medicaid and to preserve those industrial jobs that had brought economic security to working families in Michigan and throughout the country. Few Americans have fought longer or harder for working people than Frank Garrison. His pursuit of justice in the workplace has improved opportunity and security and safety for an untold number of Americans. And through it all, the good times and the bad, the victories and the defeats, Frank never lost touch with the convictions that brought him to the labor movement in the first place. And he never lost that twinkle in his eye or the ability to fill a room with laughter, sometimes at my expense, but more often at his own. He has been a strong leader, a wise counselor, but most of all a loyal friend. Mr. President, Frank Garrison has earned the respect and gratitude of so many people from my home state of Michigan both within and without the labor movement, and across the political spectrum. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him and his family well in his well deserved retirement, and in offering him a heartfelt ``thank you'' for his lifelong commitment to improving the lives of working men and women and their families.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, two of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representative Blagojevich and Representative Waxman, asked the Office of Special Investigations within the General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate the manufacture and distribution of fifty caliber armor piercing ammunition, some of the most powerful and destructive ammunition available. This investigation made public a little known program administered by the Department of Defense that makes unserviceable, excess and obsolete military ammunition available for civilian use. Under the Conventional Demilitarization Program, military armor piercing ammunition is transferred through a U.S. Company to the civilian market. This ammunition is powerful enough to penetrate metal, ballistic or bullet-proof glass, even armored cars or helicopters. With use of the fifty caliber sniper rifle, this ammunition can start fires and explosions and strike targets from extraordinary lengths. This is ammunition that is in no way suitable for civilian use. According to James Schmidt II, the President of Arizona Ammunition Inc. and a member of the Board of Directors for the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, ``the armor piercing, incendiary, and tracer type bullets are used by the police and military. Those available to the consumer are generally surplus. Our company does not sell these to the general public because they have no sporting application.'' Yet, through the Conventional Demilitarization Program, the Department of Defense makes their surplus available to the general public. The Department pays Talon Manufacturing Company $1 per ton to take possession of its demilitarized armor piercing ammunition. A percentage of this ammunition is then reconstructed and resold by Talon to domestic and foreign militaries, and to civilian buyers. In one business year, Talon sold 181,000 rounds of this refurbished military ammunition to civilian customers. Once available on the market, this extremely powerful ammunition is subject to virtually no restriction. It is easier to purchase armor piercing ammunition capable of penetrating steel and exploding on impact, than it is to buy a handgun. This deadly and incredibly damaging ammunition can be sold to anyone over 18 and possessed by anyone of any age. No federal background check is necessary. Purchases may be made easily by mail order, fax, or over the counter, and there are no federal requirements that dealers retain sales records. These loose restrictions make armor piercing ammunition highly popular among terrorists, drug traffickers and violent criminals. Certainly, the U.S. Military is not responsible for all of the armor piercing ammunition on the civilian market, but they are responsible for hundreds of thousands of armor piercing, incendiary and tracer rounds made available to the general public each year. I am an original cosponsor of legislation that would prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into contracts that permit demilitarized armor piercing ammunition to be sold to the general public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put an end to this program.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor Stanley J. Winkelman who recently passed away. Stanley will of course be remembered for the department stores which bore his family name, but it was his efforts in the community which were most dear to him and for which he will be enshrined in the memory of our community. Stanley Winkelman was born in 1922 in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, where his father operated a women's clothing store. In 1928, Stanley's father moved the family to Detroit so that he could join his brother in forming Winkelman Brothers Apparel, Inc. As Stanley grew and matured, so did the family enterprise. In 1943, Stanley Winkelman graduated from the University of Michigan with a bachelor's degree in chemistry. That same year, Stanley married his sweetheart, Margaret ``Peggy'' Wallace. The couple would go on to have three wonderful children, Marjorie, Andra, and Roger. Following graduation, Stanley worked as a research chemist at the California Institute of Technology and served as a naval officer during World War II. After the war, Stanley returned to Detroit to take part in the family business, eventually rising to hold the positions of president, chairman of the board and CEO, and in the process, becoming the guiding force of the company. At the peak of the company's success it owned a chain of 95 stores specializing in fashionable yet affordable clothing for women. The Winkelman's chain was sold in 1983 and Stanley retired in 1984. However, Stanley's retirement did not slow his commitment and service to the community. Throughout his life, Stanley was intimately involved in issues surrounding the city of Detroit. He took part in a 1963 Detroit Commission on Community Relations where he called upon the Detroit Board of Education to speed up desegregation by hiring more black teachers. Following the 1967 Detroit riots, Stanley was the leader of a New Detroit subcommittee on community services which called for a much needed review of the Detroit Police Department. In the wake of the riots, Stanley displayed his steadfast commitment to the city of Detroit by keeping his stores in the city. Stanley Winkelman's sense of social responsibility has helped lay the foundation for the resurgence of downtown Detroit. Throughout his life, Stanley was a strong supporter of education. He supported his alma mater, the University of Michigan, with both his time and money. He devoted much of his time to Detroit's education system, with particular attention given to the education of the poorest among us. Stanley also held positions of leadership in Detroit's Metropolitan Fund, the Jewish Welfare League, United Foundation, and Temple Beth El. Stanley Winkelman offered American shoppers value, but his real lasting legacy is the values he reflected and fought for to make his community a better place to live. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring Stanley Winkelman on the many great accomplishments of his life as we mourn his passing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and my good friend from New York. This bill before us is unfair and it is unwise. It is unwise because the projected surplus that the bill uses for the tax cut is based on our abiding by spending limits that have already been breached and which would require huge cuts that we cannot make and should not make in veterans' programs, education programs, criminal law enforcement, and other important programs for the people of this Nation. If the surplus to this extent materializes, in fact we should then reduce the national debt that has been built up, particularly over the last 20 years. That would be the greatest gift of all that we could make for the American people, the reduction of that debt, because that would be a reduction in the interest rates which people pay on their mortgages and cars and credit cards, and that would truly be a contribution to the well-being of our constituents. The American people also sense that the tax program before us is unfair and not just unwise; they know--this has not apparently been contested--that 40 percent goes to the upper 1 percent of our people. The highest income 1 percent get over 40 percent of the tax benefits in this bill. More than 80 percent of the tax benefits in this bill go to the upper 20 percent of our people. It is, in fact, true that we are dealing with the people's money. It has frequently been said here that what we are talking about is whether or not to give back to at least some of the people their own money. It is true. This money--this surplus--belongs to the American people. But the economy belongs to the American people as well. The Social Security system belongs to the American people as well. The Medicare system belongs to the American people as well. The Head Start program belongs to the American people. Veteran hospitals belong to the American people. It is important that we consider what to do with a projected surplus--that we deal with this surplus as what it is, the people's money, but look at all of what we do here as hopefully carrying out the people's business. This bill takes us down the wrong road--the road back toward the deficit ditch that we are finally beginning to climb out of. It has taken us fewer years than expected. But, nonetheless, it has taken us about 6 years to get out of the ditch which we got ourselves into, particularly during the decade of the 1980s. Now that we are finally out of that ditch, we should stay out of that ditch. We should use any real surplus--not projected surplus but any real surplus--to protect Social Security and Medicare, and have a prescription program, and to do what is vitally necessary to invest in our people, particularly through their education, but then to pay down that national debt and to give back to the people what they truly want, which is a sound economy on a long-term basis and low interest rates on a long-term basis. That is what would be guaranteed if, in fact, we apply any real surplus beyond Social Security and Medicare prescription needs, beyond the investment in education, if we take that surplus, if it is real, and pay down the national debt. Instead, this bill takes us down a different road, a road which will deliver a huge tax cut mainly for those among us who need it the least and who are, for the most part, not even asking us for it. This bill represents an imprudent and unfair step, and we should not take it. I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in less than two weeks, the students of Columbine High School will resume classes and begin their 1999-2000 school year. Since the now infamous Columbine massacre on April 20th, the school has gone through a complete transformation. Sixteen high- definition security cameras have been installed in the school; bullet holes have been patched or covered; the alarm system, which rang for hours during the reign of terror, has been replaced; and new glass windows have been installed to replace broken ones shattered by bullets and home-made bombs. In addition, keyed entry doors have been replaced by high-security electronic doors, a makeshift library has been created out of classrooms, and the school district has hired two additional security guards for protection. School officials will be making additional changes up until the very day students come back on August 16th, all in an effort to make the Columbine students feel safer when they return to school. Yet, Columbine students were not the only ones affected by last April's shooting. Students and teachers around the nation have lost the sense of safety they deserve to have at school. These students will hardly regain that safety by new landscaping or replaced alarm systems. These students and their families will continue to live in fear until the real issue at hand is addressed: the easy accessibility that young people have to guns. When school resumes on August 16th at Columbine and around the nation, Congress will have done nothing to prevent young people from purchasing dangerous weapons. Students across the nation will walk into school to begin a new year, while Congress is in a month-long recess, having done nothing to change the same loopholes in the same Federal firearms laws that put the weapons in the hands of minors. Congress's failure to act is inexcusable. Moderate reforms designed to limit juvenile access to firearms are long overdue. Yet, proponents of even the most modest gun safety legislation have come up against nothing but stonewalling and procedural delays. Sadly, it seems as if action on the juvenile justice bill is only propelled forward by additional tragedies; the Senate bill, having been passed on the day of another school shooting at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia, and the final motion to appoint conferees occurring just one day after a mass shooting in Atlanta. I pray that it does not take yet another mass shooting to move this legislation out of Conference Committee and onto the President's desk.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the news out of Kosovo concerning the commission of atrocities against Serbs and Gypsies is deeply troubling. According to a report released on Tuesday by Human Rights Watch ``for the province's minorities, and especially the Serb and Roma (Gypsy) populations, as well as some ethnic populations perceived as collaborators or as political opponents of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), these changes have brought fear, uncertainty, and in some cases violence.'' The report adds that ``The intent behind many of the killings and abductions that have occurred in the province since early June appears to be the expulsion of Kosovo's Serb and Roma population rather than a desire for revenge alone.'' Mr. President, the massive atrocities committed against the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo pursuant to Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing policy have been appropriately condemned by the international community. The United States and our NATO allies have invested a great deal of resources and put their sons and daughters at risk to stop the atrocities and to reverse the ethnic cleansing. But they did not do so to allow the former victims to commit atrocities against or seek to ethnically cleanse the Serbs and Gypsies. When I visited Kosovo in the first week of July along with Senators Reed, Landrieu and Sessions, we met with Hashim Thaci, political leader of the KLA and Colonel Agim Ceku, the KLA military commander. We condemned the violence being perpetrated against the Serbs and asked them to speak out against the mistreatment of the Serbs. They stated to us they have publicly called for the Serbs to stay and for those who have left to return provided they had not previously committed atrocities. Mr. President, words are important but deeds are more important. I realize that the KLA is not a highly-disciplined organization and that there are extremists within the KLA who do not answer to either Mr. Thaci or Colonel Ceku. I also realize that not all those who are presently committing atrocities are members of the KLA. But Mr. Thaci and Colonel Ceku and other Albanian leaders must do more to bring an end to the cycle of violence in Kosovo. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 164,000 Serbs have left Kosovo during the seven weeks since Yugoslav and Serb forces withdrew and KFOR entered Kosovo, and the number continues to rise. The military troops of the NATO-led KFOR are not trained to be policemen and the enforcement of day-to-day law and order is not and should not be their mission. The United Nations has only deployed about 400 civilian police to Kosovo. The deployment of the international civilian police force to Kosovo must be accelerated. The cycle of violence in Kosovo must stop. I visited with the ethnic Albanian refugees in the camps in Macedonia and was sickened at their horrific stories of their mistreatment at the hands of the Serbs. I was a strong supporter of the NATO air campaign against Serbia and of the deployment of the NATO-led KFOR. I support the reconstruction of Kosovo and the creation of an autonomous multi- ethnic Kosovo. But none of us, no matter what position we took on other issues involved in NATO's action in Kosovo, can accept criminal acts against Serbs and Gypsies in Kosovo. President Clinton and the leaders of our NATO allies won the support of their citizens for the NATO air campaign and subsequent peacekeeping mission in part because it was the humane thing to do. Americans and Europeans alike were deeply upset at the plight of the ethnic Albanian refugees. That support will dissipate if the cycle of violence in Kosovo does not stop. I call on NATO, the United Nations, the leaders of the ethnic Albanian community in Kosovo, particularly Mr. Thaci and Colonel Ceku, and the law abiding citizens of Kosovo, to act and act now to show their rejection of lawlessness and violence. The cycle of violence must stop.