Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the managers have accepted the amendment that I introduced adding funds for existing research programs under the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to help identify and develop alternatives for pesticides that are currently necessary for fruit production and whose use is likely to be restricted under the Food Quality Protection Act. This research program has provided much needed support to Michigan's fruit producers, and I thank the managers for allowing it to continue. It is my understanding that the full amount of the cost of this program will come from the ``Markets, trade, and policy'' section of the CSREES research grants, which currently is undersubscribed. It is also my hope that the additional research funds that I sought for another ongoing CSREES research project to help farmers reduce their use of fertilizer and pesticide inputs can be secured in conference.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I again commend Senator Collins for her really strong leadership of our subcommittee in so many consumer protection measures. This is just the latest of many on which Senator Collins has been the leader. That leadership is critically important to the American people. I commend her on it. I also want to single out Senator Edwards. He made a major contribution to this bill by making it possible for people who no longer want to receive these sweepstakes to call a phone number to stop the deluge of mail which is received in so many homes. As in so many other areas, he is already making a great contribution to this Senate. I especially thank him for his contribution to this bipartisan bill. That part of this bill is a very important part. It is a very creative part of the bill. Again, it makes it possible, in a very practical way, for people who get sick and tired of the swamping of their mailboxes with these sweepstakes offers, to end that. This bill attempts to end these sweepstakes swindles which are swamping our Nation. The sweepstakes scams are part of a $1 billion industry, an industry which is too often based on deception, an industry which too often tells people they have won a prize, dangles in front of them that promised prize, and then, of course, encloses the promotional materials that create the impression that buying a product will help to get that prize. Most people are skeptical when they get this mail. They realize there could be 100,000 people who are told they have just won a huge amount of money, but there is a significant percentage of our people who are misled. The companies that do this prey on some of the most vulnerable among us and they take special advantage of our seniors. This is shown, in particular, when somebody responds to one of these promotions and then they are frequently inundated with followup targeted promotions. In fact, according to one of our witnesses, one person could get as many as 144 mailings from one company in 1 year and that, by the way, is one of the larger companies that does that, one of the so-called legitimate companies. Our bill is aimed at ending the abuses and the deceptions and the scams. It will require the companies that are using these sweepstakes to display clearly and conspicuously and in a prominent place and in a prominent manner a statement that no purchase is necessary to enter the contest and, even more important, in my judgment at least, a statement saying that a purchase will not improve their chances of winning. There are other requirements in this bill, and they are important requirements, but I think those are two of the most important requirements that we do now impose on an industry to see if we can clean up some of these abuses. We also give the Postal Service some long-needed tools to put the scam artists out of business. The Postal Service will have subpoena authority. The Postal Service will no longer have to take two steps before clamping down on the deception; they will be able to do it in one step. If the representation is deceptive and violates our bill, the Postal Service will be able to end it directly and not have to first go through an order which, in turn, will have to be violated as is the current law. If someone violates the law, they should not need two steps. One step ought to be enough to stop the violation and punish the perpetrator. This bill is intended to close the loopholes in our law, to end the deceptions that permit too many of these sweepstakes to take in too many people, usually too many vulnerable people, raising hundreds of millions of dollars from people who usually cannot afford the dollars they are scammed into sending to the deceptive mailers of some of these sweepstakes. Madam President, again, I commend the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for her very strong leadership, and the other members of our committee who have participated, including Senator Cochran who has been a leader in this and, again, Senator Edwards for his major contribution to this bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our bill requires a sweepstakes or skill contest promotion, in order to be mailable matter, to contain a number of specific disclosures. Each of the disclosures required by the bill must be ``clearly and conspicuously displayed.'' We have defined that term in the bill to mean ``readily noticeable, readable, and understandable.'' This is a definition consistent with the definition used by the Federal Trade Commission. Two of the required disclosures--that no purchase is necessary to win and that purchasing does not improve your chances of winning--are so important to giving a consumer the information he or she needs to decide whether or not to enter a sweepstakes and if so, whether or not to purchase an advertised product--that they should appear prominently in three places in each mailing. Our addition of the term ``prominently'' to these two disclosures is intended to emphasize the heightened significance of these disclaimers. This means that these two disclosures must be highly visible and highly noticeable to the reader. In Edgeworth v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 673 F. Supp. 922, 923 (N.D. Ill. 1987), rev. on other grounds, 683 F. Supp. 1193 (1988), the District Court defined ``prominent and accessible place'' to mean that the message conveyed can readily be observed by the people for whom it is intended. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Clemmons, 742 F. Supp. 1073, 1075 (D.NV 1990), the District Court defined ``prominently displayed'' to mean ``the message must have greater prominence than the balance of the policy language. . . . In other words, a clause attains prominence by being different from its surrounding terms.'' ``Prominently'' requires, for purposes of our bill, making the two disclosures to which ``prominently'' applies different from other messages in appearance, manner of presentation, and location. These two disclosures must stand out from the rest of the printed material on the three locations where they are required to appear. One can argue that there is going to be some subjectivity in deciding whether a statement is prominently placed in a promotion or not. Our intention here is to provide the Postal Service with enough guidance to ensure that when it comes to these two disclosures, there should be no close calls. These two disclosures should be obviously clearly and conspicuously displayed in a prominent manner and location. Does the Senator from Maine agree with my description?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, during the July 1999 hearing on deceptive mail held by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, several promoters testified that they use different business names and different stationery to send to the same people different-looking mailings to promote the same sweepstakes. So, for example, on day one, a person can get a solicitation to enter a $10,000 sweepstakes, and the solicitation says on the top that ``Company Blue'' is making the offer. In the rules it says ``your chances of winning are 1 in 3 million.'' Let's say you enter that sweepstakes. One week later you get another solicitation for a $10,000 sweepstakes. And we learned that the standard operating procedure for this type of sweepstakes is to send 5 or 6 mailings for the same sweepstakes after the person responds to the first mailing. So on this second mailing, it says ``Company Red'' at the top and the materials look totally different from the ``Company Blue'' promotions. The rules of this second solicitation also say you have a 1 in 3 million chance of winning $10,000, which a reasonable person would think is a completely different sweepstakes. That's also what the promoter wants you to think. So you think you have a chance of winning $20,000 in total. But, you don't. The most you can win is $10,000. I believe these mailings are misrepresenting the facts, and under existing law these misrepresentations are deceptive. For example, in the ``Company Blue'' and ``Company Red'' scenario I just described, the promoter wants you to think that you're receiving two separate solicitations, each involving two separate sweepstakes. In fact, the solicitations for ``Company Blue'' and ``Company Red'' are for the same sweepstakes and thus you can win only once. Section 3005 of title 39 currently allows the Postal Service to deny delivery of mail used as part of a scheme to obtain money through the mail by means of false representations. Clearly many sweepstakes promoters use different business names and different stationery to make you think their multiple solicitations are unique and have no relationship to each other. Does the Senator from Maine agree that these multiple mailing schemes mislead people into thinking they are entering separate contests from different companies?

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a similar request, I ask unanimous consent that Leslie Bell of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her tremendous leadership on this issue and so many other consumer protection issues. She is leading the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with tremendous distinction, with great strength, and the consumers of this Nation are all better off because of that leadership. This bill is a further example of that leadership. I am proud to be her principal cosponsor of the bill that we have worked on for so long. Sweepstakes for many Americans has become a cruel joke. Americans are overwhelmed with sweepstakes solicitations in the mail that deceptively appear to promise large winnings but deliver only empty appeals for purchases of unneeded products and more entries into additional sweepstakes. The majority of Americans may have a healthy skepticism about these solicitations and don't believe the misleading representations. But many are not so disbelieving, and they can get caught up and do get caught up in a spiral of financial and emotional trauma. The subcommittee heard story after story before of seniors particularly, some of the most vulnerable people in America, who receive these mailings and believe that they have been awarded a prize. Several of my constituents from Michigan lost tens of thousands of dollars to sweepstakes solicitations. One woman in Grand Rapids spent over $12,000 in one year with Reader's Digest alone. A woman in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan spent $30,000 in less than a month on sweepstakes-related promotions. Sweepstakes solicitations are big business. Companies using sweepstakes to promote their products, be it magazines or coupon books, or jewelry, send over a billion pieces of mail a year to American consumers. We learned that one person could get from one company alone as much as 144 different pieces of sweepstakes mail in a year. That was from a so-called ``legitimate company.'' Purchases through these types of mailings are in the billions of dollars. Sweepstakes are used as the ``come-on'' to get the recipient to purchase a product or make a contribution. They are used, companies say, to get the recipients to open the envelopes, and, once opened, used to get the person to respond with a purchase or contribution. Promoters argue that sweepstakes entrants buy these products because they want them or need them. Our investigation demonstrated that many people who enter these sweepstakes purchase items only because they think doing so will improve their chances of winning the sweepstakes prize. A large number buy and buy and buy, spending tens of thousands of dollars, with that expectation that the purchase of items will help improve their chances of winning. Companies are not allowed by law to use the U.S. mails to conduct a lottery. A lottery is where payment must be given in order to have a chance to win. It is illegal for a sweepstakes promotor to require a purchase in order for a person to have a chance to win or to improve a person's chances of winning. Buying something when entering a sweepstakes cannot, by law, do anything to improve a person's chances of winning. Many people don't know that or believe a purchase will improve their chance and many sweepstake companies try to leave the impression that buying something will give that recipient an advantage. Sweepstake companies encourage this in many ways. For example, some use different envelopes for those who buy a product and those who don't. Here is an example from Reader's Digest. They send two envelopes. If a person orders something, the envelope says: Yes, Reward Entitlement [underlined], Granted and Guaranteed. If a person does not order something, the envelope says: No Reward Entitlement, Denied and Unwarranted. They go to different post office boxes, clearly leaving a very different impression. It is a very strong different impression and a very deceptive different impression. Other sweepstake companies use their own envelope and address card for those entering the sweepstake without purchasing a product. In another sweepstakes, they are given an envelope if they want to buy something; if they don't want to buy something but still enter, they have to fill out their own envelope or their own card, which is much more difficult than if they are simply buying a product. Some companies try to confuse the message, leaving the recipient to believe he has to pay a fee to collect a prize that he has already won. This certificate from the ``Motor Vehicle Awards'' states: [You] are guaranteed to receive a brand-new automobile or a cash award. The first envelope has the name of the person receiving it, so it is very personalized: [Mr. or Miss Someone] are guaranteed to receive a brand-new automobile or cash award. They ask the recipient to confirm that his name is spelled correctly on the certificate and to indicate how he wants the car delivered. In the very last paragraph it says: In addition, an optional commodities package with a fully redeemable value of over $2,500 is being held pending your submission of the standard acquisition fee. The impression is that the recipient has won a car, that all he has to do is return the certificate for the car, and pay an acquisition fee. Of course, the impression they attempt to create--and often do, according to our testimony--is that acquisition fee relates to the car. If he does that, the impression is he will receive a car and the commodities package. That is a pretty good bargain, at $14.98 for a car and commodities package. In reality, this is a sales promotion for the commodities package connected to a sweepstake. The acquisition fee of $14.98 is buying the commodities package. The commodities package is nothing more than a booklet of coupons that require buying items in order to redeem the coupons. One must spend thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for items that you don't need in order to receive the savings that are promised. Yet we learned at our hearings this is a very common sweepstakes scheme. Honest businesses don't engage in these practices, or they shouldn't. Over and over we heard from victims of the deceptive sweepstakes packages that they thought they had to buy something to receive the big prize or to improve their chances of winning. The sweepstake companies are very artful at creating this impression. This is about stringing people along. Often the people being strung along are the most vulnerable. This is a promotion from Reader's Digest to a constituent of mine whose house is filled to the brim with tapes, books, CDs, and magazines she bought believing it would help her get the prize. This is a Certificate of Recognition for her loyalty to Reader's Digest: Dear valued customer: You've been selected to receive one of our highest honors--the Reader's Digest Recognition Reward. It's your obvious love of Reader's Digest and sweepstakes that made you an ideal candidate. In fact, it was your recent subscription request that finalized our decision. In other words, keep buying and we will keep sending opportunities to win a sweepstake. It is buying the Reader's Digest that they are saying gets the special treatment. What is the Reader's Digest Recognition Award? It is a little stick 'em label that is pulled off this letter that has my constituent's name on it so she can paste it on any article of furniture around her house. It really is a come-on, an opportunity to enter yet another sweepstake. That is the award, a little stick 'em that Mrs. Roosenberg got for spending over $12,000 in 1 year for products she didn't even open, filling up her house. Through the artful placement of words and graphics, the sweepstakes companies make the reader believe they have won. They use such large screaming headlines: [Mr. X] is Officially Declared $833,337 Winner. A big headline you can't miss. However, one misses the fine print that says, no, you haven't--only if you held the right number. What jumps out is the headline that you have won. Our sweepstakes promoters try to make their envelopes look special, not like the bulk mail which they are, or try to make them look like a Government document, or even in the case of a recent Publishers Clearinghouse envelope, as if they were photographs that the recipient paid to have developed. This envelope looks exactly like envelopes received from the photo store. In fact, this is one of these sweepstake offers from Publishers Clearinghouse. We cannot control each and every trick that a company uses to get the recipient of a sweepstakes promotion to buy something. However, there are some things we can and we should insist upon. We can insist that the companies state clearly and conspicuously that buying something will not improve a person's chances of winning. We can insist that these companies state clearly and conspicuously that you don't need to buy anything to win. We can make these companies state clearly and conspicuously what are the odds of winning. In many cases, the odds are nearly 1 in 100 million or 1 in 150 million. We can also require the sweepstake promoters not tell a person they have won if they haven't and not use devices to suggest that the mail is from a Government agency. That will hopefully alert the folks receiving the sweepstakes promotion and will help them think twice before buying items they really do not want and do not need. In the last Congress, several of our colleagues joined in sponsoring a bill to increase enforcement of deceptive mailings by the Postal Service. This, year Senator Collins held hearings on sweepstakes and other forms of deceptive mail. We have introduced two bills to try to eliminate deceptive sweepstakes practices. Senator Collins' bill is S. 335; my bill is S. 336. We learned during the hearings that the financial costs to consumers for deceptive and fraudulent sweepstakes is a serious problem and one that particularly plagues our senior citizens. We learned that the Postal Service has inadequate law enforcement tools to effectively shut down deceptive direct marketers who use deceptive sweepstakes promotions to sell their products. We also learned that the Postal Service can't impost a fine against such a promoter until the Postal Service has issued a stop order, and the stop order has been violated. Wily promoters craft their mailing so that it technically complies with a particular stop order but is this deceptive? Thus, time and time again these promoters continue to prey on Americans, and the postal Service has been all but powerless to stop them. The bill before us is a combination of our two bills. It establishes a special provision in law for deceptive sweepstakes mailings, requires certain disclosures to be clearly and conspicuously displayed in key parts of the sweepstakes promotion; prohibits other misleading and deceptive statements in the promotion; gives the Postal Service additional enforcement tools, and requires sweepstakes promoters to provide a mechanism for a recipient of mail to remove his or her name off a mailing list if requested. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum call, which I will ask for, be charged against our side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 additional minutes. Three key provisions in S. 336 have been incorporated into the substitute. First, to prevent unscrupulous mailers from duping people into believing that a purchase will increase their chances of winning, the bill requires that a statement that a purchase will not increase an individual's chances of winning be clearly and conspicuously displayed in a prominent place and manner in the mailing, in the rules, and on the order or entry form. I believe of all of the new requirements and standards, this is perhaps the most important. The statement that a purchase will not increase an individual's chances of winning must not only be clearly and conspicuously displayed but also displayed in a prominent place and manner in the mailing, in the rules, and on the order or entry form. Such a statement will, hopefully, help readers dissociate the ordering process from the sweepstakes entry. Second, it provides the Postal Service with the authority to issue a civil penalty for a first-time violation of the statute. This means the Postal Service does not have to first issue a stop order and then wait for that order to be violated before assessing civil penalties. This has the effect of applying the penalty to the deceptive offense, not for noncompliance with the order. It makes enforcement a one-step instead of a two-step process. Third, it gives the Postal Service the subpoena authority it often needs to help identify sweepstakes scams. Despite the specificity of the disclosures required under the bill, I remain quite concerned that the disclosures be noticeable and understandable to the reader. That is why the bill requires all disclosures to be clearly and conspicuously displayed. With a managers' amendment, we define ``clearly and conspicuously displayed'' in the bill so that there can be no misunderstanding by the Postal Service and the direct mail industry as to what we mean. Furthermore, two critical disclsoures--``no purchase necessary'' and ``a purchase will not increase an individual's chances of winning''--are required to be not only ``clearly and conspicuously displayed'' but ``prominently'' displayed as well. This means that these two diclsoures must be highly visible to and easily noticeable by the reader. These important messages will not be allowed to be hidden or disguised through illegible print size, glitzy displays which detract from the disclosure, or barely noticeable ink color. The Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999 takes a tough approach to dealing with sweepstakes solicitations and other games of chance offerings that are sent through the mail. If you use sweepstakes or a game of chance to promote the sale of a legitimate product, provide adequate disclosure, and abide with Postal Service regulations, then the Postal Service will deliver that solicitation without any interruption. If deceptive practices are used in a sweepstakes or game of chance solicitation, the Postal Service will be able to stop the solicitation and impose a significant penalty. I again thank Senator Collins again for her hard work and commitment to consumers in this legislation. I also thank Senator Cochran for his early support and Senator Edwards for his excellent work on the provision requiring a delisting of persons not wanting to receive sweepstakes mailings. Finally, I want to thank the staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the terrific job they did putting together the hearings and developing this legislation. In particular I want to thank Linda Gustitus and Leslie Bell of the minority staff, Lee Blaylock and Kirk Walder of the majority staff, and Maureen Mahon of Senator Edwards' staff. I reserve the remainder of our time as Senator Collins has indicated, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join in cosponsoring the Hollings motion to recommit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to defer tax reductions in order to reduce the national debt. I cosponsored the Hollings motion in lieu of calling up the Lieberman- Levin amendment because the effect of the Hollings motion, had it been adopted, would have been largely the same as the Lieberman-Levin amendment. The tax program before the Senate is unfair to middle income Americans, it is economically unwise and it's based on unrealistic assumptions. The unfairness is perhaps best shown by the fact that about two-thirds of its tax benefits go to the upper one-fifth of our people. In addition to being unfair, it is economically unwise in that jeopardizes Medicare, fails to strengthen Social Security, and risks higher interest rates. This bill takes us back to the bad old days of backloaded tax breaks whose real costs explode several years after enactment. This budgetary time bomb is set to go off at roughly the same time as the Medicare trust fund is expected to be bankrupt and the bill begins to come due for Social Security. In that decade, as the ``baby boomers'' begin to retire, the Social Security Trust fund will begin to run a deficit, requiring the redemption of Treasury bonds which it holds. It is also based on unrealistic projections. Projections are always risky. We have seen many federal budget estimates, and we know well that as quickly as these surpluses appear, they can disappear. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan introduced his Economic Recovery Tax Act which included huge tax cuts and predictions that the budget would be balanced by 1984. In 1981, I opposed the Reagan tax cut because I was convinced that it would lead to huge deficits. We have paid dearly for the debt which resulted from that legislation. In 1992, the deficit in the federal budget was $290 billion. The remarkable progress which has brought us now to the threshold of surpluses has come about in large part as a result of the deficit reduction package which President Clinton presented in 1993, and which this Senate passed by a margin of one vote, the Vice-President's. We should not now, by passing a tax bill like the one before us, head back down the road toward new future deficits. I joined with Senator Hollings in his motion to defer the tax cut, because it seems clear to me that we should first see if the surplus is real before we adopt tax cuts; second, if those surpluses are real, we should pay down the national debt faster; and third, we should save tax cuts for a time of economic slow down. During the consideration of this legislation and the national debate which has surrounded it, much has been made of the projected reduction of the national debt and concurrent reductions in interest payments. Although the debt held by the public, or the so-called external debt, is projected to be paid down by the surpluses accumulated in the Social Security Trust Funds, interest paid to the Social Security Trust funds in the form of bonds will continue to increase for more than a decade. At that time, in approximately 2014, unless Social Security reform has been accomplished, the Trust Funds will no longer be in surplus, but instead there will be a shortfall in those funds. As the bonds held by the Social Security Trust Funds are redeemed, we will therefore begin paying a portion of the interest owed to the Social Security Trust Funds, and eventually all of the interest owed to the Social Security Trust Funds, in cash. Also, we will then have to redeem the trillions of dollars of bonds representing principal owed to the trust funds. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table entitled ``Interest Payments and Social Security'' based on data which has been provided to me by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) be printed in the Record. (See Exhibit 1.) The table shows that through 2035, under current projections, that although the cash interest payments to the public on external debt go down over the course of the next 15 years or so to zero, the amount of interest that the Treasury will be required to pay to the Social Security Trust Funds in bonds and eventually in cash rises steadily during that period and beyond. After that, the amount of cash necessary to redeem bonds representing principal held by the Social Security Trusts Funds kicks in and then rises sharply. The projections show that in the year 2025, for example, the Treasury would be required to pay to Social Security $295 billion in interest payments and an additional $35 billion in cash to redeem bonds representing principal held by the Social Security Trust Funds which will then be needed to pay benefits to recipients. Ten years later, in the year 2035, the projections show that, in the absence of Social security reform, the Treasury would be required to pay to Social Security $135 billion in interest payments and an additional $576 in cash for bonds representing principal redeemed. These obligations are one more powerful reason why a huge tax cut, at this time, before the surpluses have even actually materialized is, in my judgement, both unwise and imprudent. Exhibit 1

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no way to measure the costs of gun crime in our society. There are estimates that put the price at $75 billion for one year of pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life caused by gun violence, but there is no real way to determine the incalculable human cost of gun-related crime. There is, however, a method to measure other financial costs associated with firearm crime. For instance, the estimated cost of health care for firearms related injuries in the United States was $4 billion in 1995. The average per- person cost of a firearm fatality is $373,000 per death, higher than any injury-related death. And, on average, it costs more than $14,000 to treat each child wounded by a firearm. Cities spend millions each year on these costs and others associated with gun related emergencies. The expenses incurred by cities include medical treatment for victims, additional police protection, and counseling services for survivors of murder victims. These additional costs are the basis of the class-action lawsuits against the firearm manufacturers, distributors and dealers. Nearly two dozen local governments, including Wayne County and Detroit, have filed suit against the manufacturers and distributors of firearms to recoup the costs of firearm related crime. And following their lead, the NAACP filed a lawsuit that does not seek monetary damages, but instead, seeks to put an end to the emotional costs of gun violence incurred by the African-American community. The recent wave of class-action lawsuits against the firearms industry are based on the industry's failure to monitor the transmission of their product to the underground markets. These class- action lawsuits seek to alter the marketing, distribution and sales of firearms. More specifically, they are an attempt to remedy the industry's failure to prevent unauthorized users from obtaining access to firearms, change the distribution system that permits firearms to be easily trafficked from the legal marketplace to the illegal marketplace, and eliminate deceptive advertising regarding the risks posed by having firearms in the home. Stated simply, these lawsuits are about distributing firearms responsibly. The NAACP lawsuit is slightly different because it does not seek to recover monetary damages, but the effect of the lawsuit would be the same. It seeks to change the sale, marketing, and distribution of the gun industry, whose alleged negligence permits the free flow of weapons in to the hands of juveniles and criminals. It asks for a court order to limit the number of firearms a single buyer can purchase each month and would require gun manufacturers to train retailers about ``straw'' purchases, and supervise the sales practices of firearms distributors and retailers. It would also require that dealers operate from a fixed retail location, and ensure that handguns are manufactured with safety devices. If the gun industry is found liable, it will draw a direct line of responsibility from the gun manufacturers to the unscrupulous distributors and dealers who provide firearms to felons. The gun industry would no longer be able to oversupply certain markets, thereby allowing guns to flow into the hands of juveniles and criminals. Manufacturers would no longer be able to turn a blind eye to the carnage produced by their products. If the gun industry is found liable, it may put an end to a majority of the gun violence caused by the unlawful, unregulated, underground firearm market.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from New York. The tax program which is in the amendment before the Senate, like the plan that it would amend, is unfair to middle-income Americans. It is economically unwise, and it is based on unrealistic assumptions. The unfairness in the underlying bill it would amend is perhaps best shown in the fact that about two-thirds of its tax benefits go to the upper one-fifth of our people. The amendment makes that worse. It makes an unfairness doubly unfair because it will give almost 80 percent of the tax benefits to the upper one-fifth of the income bracket. In addition to being unfair, it is also economically unwise because it jeopardizes Medicare, it fails to strengthen Social Security, and it risks higher interest rates. Yesterday, Alan Greenspan, testifying before the Banking Committee said: We probably would be better off holding off on a tax cut. Why? Because of the uncertainty of budget surplus projections and also because we should normally reserve tax cuts for periods of economic slowdown. The implication, in his words, has also been pretty clear over these last few months, which is that a large tax cut would cause the Fed to increase interest rates. For the average middle-income taxpayers, a rise in interest rates means larger mortgage payments, larger loan and credit card payments, larger payments on that automobile, and that would far outweigh the small share of the benefits from the tax cut which that average taxpayer might receive. The tax program that is being offered to us is also based on unrealistic projections. Projections are always risky. We have seen many Federal budget estimates, and we know that as quickly as the surpluses appear, they can disappear. The estimates of both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget have frequently been far off the mark in recent years, and that is not their fault. We have some bright economists in the CBO and the OMB. They have a difficult task. Forecasting the performance of the economy, particularly over the course of several years, is more art than science, and there is a lot of guesswork in it. For instance, the CBO estimated that the unified budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 will be $79 billion. But 4 months later, in a January 1999 CBO document, the surplus for fiscal year 2000 was estimated at $130 billion. In 4 months, it jumped from a $79 billion estimate to a $130 billion estimate. The July estimate for fiscal year 2000 now projects a $161 billion surplus. So there has been a change of over 100 percent in the projection of the surplus in less than a year. If most Americans were confronted with such uncertainty over their own budget situation, they would follow a cautious course, and we should, too. The projections in both the underlying proposal and the pending amendment to it are extremely risky because they are based on assumptions about domestic spending levels that are highly unrealistic. The on-budget surplus, which the Republicans now say will pay for the tax cut, is reliant largely on massive cuts in discretionary spending, $595 billion over 10 years. That is a 23-percent cut in real terms from the 1999 level adjusted for inflation. Can we really believe we will be cutting discretionary programs by 23 percent in real terms? Is that what we are doing now? If a realistic defense spending level is adopted--even the President's proposal; if we assume just that--the domestic spending cut will grow to $775 billion over 10 years, which is a 38-percent cut in real terms. We have seen proof in the last few weeks that these levels are unrealistic. The so-called spending caps are already being exceeded by attaching emergency spending labels to new funding. We have already heard from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that these limits, or caps, are going to be lifted in any event. The House tends to use emergency spending to get around the caps. Apparently, we are going to be more forthright and just lift the caps. So most people in Congress already believe--whether they acknowledge this publicly or not--that the caps are simply not going to hold. So we already have strong evidence that the basis of the surplus projection is not realistic or credible. The proposal before us is going to take the economy backwards, just as we are climbing out of a deficit ditch. In 1992, the deficit in the Federal budget was $290 billion. We made remarkable progress which has brought us now to the threshold of surpluses. It came in large part because of a deficit-reduction package which President Clinton presented in 1993 and which we passed by a margin of one vote. We should not now, by passing a tax bill such as the one before us, head down the road toward new future deficits. The alternative that Democrats offered yesterday was far better, by all three tests--the test of fairness, the test of prudence, the test of credibility. But by those same three tests, we should hold off on any tax cut. We should hold off on any tax cut, period. First, we should see if the surplus is real before we adopt tax cuts. Second, if the surpluses are real, we should pay down the national debt faster. And third, we should save tax cuts for a time of economic slow down. The argument is made that this is the taxpayers' money. It is. But the economy is the American taxpayers', too. The economy belongs to the American taxpayer. Social Security belongs to the American people, just as this money belongs to the American people. The surplus belongs to the American people. So does the Medicare program belong to the American people. Our education program, helping people through college, belongs to the American people, just as the surplus does. These are taxpayers' dollars. There can be no dispute about that. But the veterans' program is the American people's program. When we cut veterans' health care, we are cutting into something that the American people want. It is their program, just as the surplus, just as the taxes, are the American people's. The American people are speaking loudly, at least to me, at least in my office, when I go back home to Michigan every weekend and talk to the American people. What they are telling me is: Pay down the debt, protect Social Security, protect Medicare. Do what you need to do to invest in education. Don't cut veterans' programs. But we don't need this tax cut that is being proposed at this time, not just because it is unfair to middle income Americans--which it is, since most of the benefits go to the upper fifth--but we don't need the tax cut because we want debt reduction, real debt reduction. That is what they are telling us. That is what the American people, who produced this surplus, who send us the tax money, are telling us. They are telling us that loudly, not just in public opinion polls--in the mail that we open up, in the phone calls we get, and in the personal pleas we get when we go home. That is exactly what we should do: To hold off on any tax cut and reduce the debt with the money that otherwise would go to that tax cut, again, not just because it is unfair--which it is--but because it is unwise and imprudent. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, small businesses are the biggest job producers in our economy and technology is an increasingly important component to those growth figures. Contributing to that continued high technology job growth is a high technology procurement program that allows small and innovative high technology companies to bid on some of the federal government's research and development proposals. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program gives these small technology companies a tool to compete in the big leagues by giving them fairer access to federal research and a way to finance that research in order to commercialize it. It also gives the federal government access to highly innovative companies that can custom design and develop specialized technology for an agency's specific needs-- something bigger companies may not be able to do as well. The SBIR program does this by mandating that each federal agency with a research and development budget that is contracted to outside vendors in excess of $100 million designate 2.5 percent of this budget for awards to small businesses. Currently there are 10 federal agencies participating in the SBIR program. A smaller component of this program is the Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR), which allows 5 agencies to allocate three twentieths of one percent of these funds to small businesses that partner with non-profit institutions to do the research and development. The SBIR program creates jobs, increases our capacity for technological innovation and boosts our international competitiveness. According to an April 1998 GAO study, about 50 percent of SBIR research is commercialized or receives additional research funding. That's a pretty good success rate. It's also a great example of federal agencies working together with small businesses to develop technologies to solve specific problems and fill government procurement needs in a cost effective way. The SBIR and STTR programs are successful programs and we can make them even more successful by establishing a volunteer mentoring program. Such a program would partner CEOs of small high technology companies that have successfully completed a SBIR or STTR program with small businesses in low participation areas to guide them through the process, increasing their chances for success and, ultimately, the commercialization of their research. Many states believe they can do better regarding the number of SBIR awards their small businesses win. Since the SBIR and STTR programs are highly competitive and merit-based programs and should remain so, I believe the best way to increase participation is through outreach and mentoring. My bill would target its mentoring program to low participation areas which receive a disproportionately low number of SBIR awards as compared with other areas in the state or in the country. Michigan is just one example of a state which has many low participation areas within it that could improve their participation in the program. In 1997 Michigan small businesses nevertheless won 102 SBIR awards worth a total of $24.6 million, ranking it 14th nationally. But Michigan should be doing better. Based on its population, Michigan ranks 8th nationally, not 14th as it does in number of SBIR awards. I believe the volunteer mentoring program I am proposing will help small high technology businesses from those areas within Michigan and around the country that lack access to research universities, venture capital or other resources to increase their chances of participating successfully in this program. Last summer, the Senate Small Business Committee held an SBIR oversight hearing to begin to develop a hearing record in preparation for SBIR's reauthorization. At that hearing, GAO presented a study favorably reviewing the program. It pointed out, however, that because agencies are adhering to the program requirements that they not use SBIR funds to pay for the administrative costs of the program, this funding restriction has limited their ability to provide some needed administrative support. For example, some agencies reported they do not have the necessary funds to provide personnel to act as mentors to their SBIR companies or engage in activities that could possibly increase the program's success in phase III. GAO also said the lack of administrative support means agencies are unable to provide SBIR participants with much-needed training in business skills. A volunteer mentoring program could fill this void. Also at that hearing, a number of Senators expressed a desire to see more geographical distribution of SBIR awards and hearing witnesses suggested this could be addressed through outreach to make more high technology small businesses aware of the program. A natural complement to reaching out to new companies to tell them about the SBIR and STTR programs is the establishment of a mentoring program to increase their odds for success in those programs. Many SBIR-company CEOs have benefitted from the program, are committed to its success and have told me they want to give something back. They propose doing this in the way of mentoring small businesses that are new to the SBIR process. The bill I am introducing today would establish a program to coordinate that process and reimburse volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket-expenses. It would also address the desire to expand participation in the program by targeting the mentoring to low participation areas. I am pleased to have the Senate Small Business Committee Ranking Member, John Kerry, join me as an original cosponsor of this bill. My legislation also has the support of key members of the SBIR community. My bill would establish a Mentoring program where past SBIR and STTR recipients partner with new applicant companies in low participation areas to help guide them through the process and increase their chances of success. A small business's failure to obtain a phase I or Phase II award may have nothing to do with the capability of its technology but rather is often a result of a lack of understanding the government procurement process and procedures. This mentoring program would help bring new companies into the SBIR program from areas that have not traditionally participated at high rates. It would also increase Phase III awards and commercialization of the technology being developed. Specifically, my bill would establish a competitively bid volunteer mentoring grant program for the SBIR and STTR programs. The Small Business Administration would be responsible for administering the program. Organizations representing SBIR and STTR awardees could apply for grants ranging from $50,000 -$200,000 to participate in the program. Qualifying organizations would match small businesses in low participation areas new to the SBIR/STTR process with CEOs and others of small, high technology companies that have successfully completed one or more SBIR/STTR contracts, grants or cooperative agreements. The ``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out-of-pocket expenses. Their time, energy and know-how would be donated free-of- charge. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year to cover administration of the program and reimbursement of volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket expenses. There are a number of effective organizations and entities representing SBIR and STTR companies that would be eligible to apply for the program. This legislation is intended to attract organizations such as the Small Business Technology Coalition, various regional groups or entities working with SBIR companies as well as some technology oriented specialized Small Business Development Centers, and others. Some of these eligible entities and organizations may even chose to partner together in a collaborative effort to apply to the program. The SBIR program, originally established in 1982 and reauthorized and expanded in 1992, expires in fiscal year 2000. This highly competitive program has a well deserved reputation for success and has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. I hope my bill can be included in that reauthorizing legislation to improve what is already a successful program giving small high technology companies access to federal research and development and the federal government access to some of the world's best innovation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of endorsement for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, small businesses are the biggest job producers in our economy and technology is an increasingly important component to those growth figures. Contributing to that continued high technology job growth is a high technology procurement program that allows small and innovative high technology companies to bid on some of the federal government's research and development proposals. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program gives these small technology companies a tool to compete in the big leagues by giving them fairer access to federal research and a way to finance that research in order to commercialize it. It also gives the federal government access to highly innovative companies that can custom design and develop specialized technology for an agency's specific needs-- something bigger companies may not be able to do as well. The SBIR program does this by mandating that each federal agency with a research and development budget that is contracted to outside vendors in excess of $100 million designate 2.5 percent of this budget for awards to small businesses. Currently there are 10 federal agencies participating in the SBIR program. A smaller component of this program is the Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR), which allows 5 agencies to allocate three twentieths of one percent of these funds to small businesses that partner with non-profit institutions to do the research and development. The SBIR program creates jobs, increases our capacity for technological innovation and boosts our international competitiveness. According to an April 1998 GAO study, about 50 percent of SBIR research is commercialized or receives additional research funding. That's a pretty good success rate. It's also a great example of federal agencies working together with small businesses to develop technologies to solve specific problems and fill government procurement needs in a cost effective way. The SBIR and STTR programs are successful programs and we can make them even more successful by establishing a volunteer mentoring program. Such a program would partner CEOs of small high technology companies that have successfully completed a SBIR or STTR program with small businesses in low participation areas to guide them through the process, increasing their chances for success and, ultimately, the commercialization of their research. Many states believe they can do better regarding the number of SBIR awards their small businesses win. Since the SBIR and STTR programs are highly competitive and merit-based programs and should remain so, I believe the best way to increase participation is through outreach and mentoring. My bill would target its mentoring program to low participation areas which receive a disproportionately low number of SBIR awards as compared with other areas in the state or in the country. Michigan is just one example of a state which has many low participation areas within it that could improve their participation in the program. In 1997 Michigan small businesses nevertheless won 102 SBIR awards worth a total of $24.6 million, ranking it 14th nationally. But Michigan should be doing better. Based on its population, Michigan ranks 8th nationally, not 14th as it does in number of SBIR awards. I believe the volunteer mentoring program I am proposing will help small high technology businesses from those areas within Michigan and around the country that lack access to research universities, venture capital or other resources to increase their chances of participating successfully in this program. Last summer, the Senate Small Business Committee held an SBIR oversight hearing to begin to develop a hearing record in preparation for SBIR's reauthorization. At that hearing, GAO presented a study favorably reviewing the program. It pointed out, however, that because agencies are adhering to the program requirements that they not use SBIR funds to pay for the administrative costs of the program, this funding restriction has limited their ability to provide some needed administrative support. For example, some agencies reported they do not have the necessary funds to provide personnel to act as mentors to their SBIR companies or engage in activities that could possibly increase the program's success in phase III. GAO also said the lack of administrative support means agencies are unable to provide SBIR participants with much-needed training in business skills. A volunteer mentoring program could fill this void. Also at that hearing, a number of Senators expressed a desire to see more geographical distribution of SBIR awards and hearing witnesses suggested this could be addressed through outreach to make more high technology small businesses aware of the program. A natural complement to reaching out to new companies to tell them about the SBIR and STTR programs is the establishment of a mentoring program to increase their odds for success in those programs. Many SBIR-company CEOs have benefitted from the program, are committed to its success and have told me they want to give something back. They propose doing this in the way of mentoring small businesses that are new to the SBIR process. The bill I am introducing today would establish a program to coordinate that process and reimburse volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket-expenses. It would also address the desire to expand participation in the program by targeting the mentoring to low participation areas. I am pleased to have the Senate Small Business Committee Ranking Member, John Kerry, join me as an original cosponsor of this bill. My legislation also has the support of key members of the SBIR community. My bill would establish a Mentoring program where past SBIR and STTR recipients partner with new applicant companies in low participation areas to help guide them through the process and increase their chances of success. A small business's failure to obtain a phase I or Phase II award may have nothing to do with the capability of its technology but rather is often a result of a lack of understanding the government procurement process and procedures. This mentoring program would help bring new companies into the SBIR program from areas that have not traditionally participated at high rates. It would also increase Phase III awards and commercialization of the technology being developed. Specifically, my bill would establish a competitively bid volunteer mentoring grant program for the SBIR and STTR programs. The Small Business Administration would be responsible for administering the program. Organizations representing SBIR and STTR awardees could apply for grants ranging from $50,000 -$200,000 to participate in the program. Qualifying organizations would match small businesses in low participation areas new to the SBIR/STTR process with CEOs and others of small, high technology companies that have successfully completed one or more SBIR/STTR contracts, grants or cooperative agreements. The ``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out-of-pocket expenses. Their time, energy and know-how would be donated free-of- charge. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year to cover administration of the program and reimbursement of volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket expenses. There are a number of effective organizations and entities representing SBIR and STTR companies that would be eligible to apply for the program. This legislation is intended to attract organizations such as the Small Business Technology Coalition, various regional groups or entities working with SBIR companies as well as some technology oriented specialized Small Business Development Centers, and others. Some of these eligible entities and organizations may even chose to partner together in a collaborative effort to apply to the program. The SBIR program, originally established in 1982 and reauthorized and expanded in 1992, expires in fiscal year 2000. This highly competitive program has a well deserved reputation for success and has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. I hope my bill can be included in that reauthorizing legislation to improve what is already a successful program giving small high technology companies access to federal research and development and the federal government access to some of the world's best innovation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of endorsement for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the Fourth of July weekend, the nation was stunned by the actions of a single young man on a racially motivated killing spree. The man's name was Benjamin Smith, and it seems clear, he spent his short life consumed by hatred. Because of this hatred, the nation mourns the death of a former University of Detroit and Western Michigan University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong and doctoral student Won-Joon Yoon, both the victims of hate crime. Benjamin Smith was just one of many who unleashed his hate onto others through violence. According to FBI statistics, at least one hate crime occurs every hour in the United States. That means at least one violent crime each hour is motivated by bias. Hate crimes have no place in a society founded on tolerance and equality. There must be a clear message to hate-mongers like Benjamin Smith, that the federal government will do everything in its power so that the perpetrators of bias crimes will be investigated, prosecuted and punished as quickly as possible. But the federal government is limited to a certain extent in its ability to assist state and local prosecutors in their investigations of hate crime. That's why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Hate Crimes Protection Act, a bill which would amend the existing federal hate crimes law and expand the federal government's role in the investigation and prosecution of bias-inspired conduct. The federal government has always had a special role in stifling violence and discriminatory treatment. This Act continues in that tradition by strengthening federal authority to ensure that racially-motivated criminals are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This amendment would also expand the definition of hate crime, which now only pertains to the victim's race, color, religion and natural origin, to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, and disability. By expanding the definition of hate crime, the nation sends a clear message that it will not tolerate any violent crime, especially targeted at those who have traditionally been more vulnerable to violence. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has the support of over 100 civil rights and law enforcement organizations, as well as a broad range of state and local government associations, and state Attorneys General. These groups, who work with the victims of hate crimes on a daily basis, understand that violent hate crimes, not only affect the victim's family, but are injurious to the entire community. Because hate crimes have a such a deep impact on society, these civil rights and law enforcement organizations support the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the role it gives the federal government in ensuring that perpetrators of bias crime are subject to enhanced prosecutions and penalties. I am pleased to join a distinguished list of cosponsors on this amendment and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this Act and take a stand against hate crime.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Gregg and Hollings and Reid for their efforts in helping an amendment be added to the managers' package which Senator DeWine and I offered relative to Great Lakes stations and measuring stations for water levels. It is an important amendment for the Great Lakes. I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I and Senator DeWine wrote to Senators Gregg and Hollings dated June 24 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, California Governor Gray Davis signed into law two of the strictest gun control measures in the country. One of these laws is the nation's most comprehensive ban on assault weapons, and the other prohibits the purchase of more than one handgun a month. California residents support these common sense safety measures designed to take lethal, semiautomatic weapons off the streets, and reduce illegal gun trafficking. Californians feel strongly about ending the easy accessibility of guns because of their history with gun violence over this last decade. In 1989, Americans were shocked when a madman walked into a schoolyard in Stockton, CA, with a rapid-firing AK-47 and shot off 50 rounds a minute for 2 minutes, killing 5 children and wounding 30. Californians were again struck by tragedy in a 1993 massacre at a San Francisco law firm in which 8 people died and 6 were wounded, and again in 1997, when a high profile armed bank robbery spilled out on to the streets of North Hollywood. As always, NRA lobbyists were working to undermine the effort of the California state legislature. But because gun violence has held such a prominent and tragic place in the minds and hearts of Californians, the legislature was able to defy the NRA and pass these responsible gun control measures. So many families in California have been torn apart by gun violence, and so many people have been affected by the weak gun control laws in this nation, that the NRA failed in the California state legislature. I hope that other states will follow the lead of the California state legislature and pass responsible gun control measures. I pray that they learn from the tragedies in California, rather than wait for a decade of tragedies to occur in their own states, before passing responsible safety measures. I also make an appeal to my Congressional colleagues to pass sensible gun control legislation now. Although in this case, the debate on gun violence has moved to the state legislature, Congress has not been absolved of its responsibility. We must end the plague of gun violence that claims so many innocent lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to proceed as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendments which we have just adopted improve the underlying provision. Nevertheless, there are some important concerns that were raised, and I want to take a moment to address them and speak to the hope they be addressed in conference. Let me go through some of these concerns. First, section (k) of the amendment prohibits anybody in the Department except for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary from providing supervision or direction to the Agency for Nuclear Stewardship. That could prohibit certain specific statutory authorities found in other laws from being implemented. For instance, the Chief Financial Officers Act established some very specific authorities and duties for chief financial officers. They must direct all aspects of a department's fiscal policy. Second, the same is true for the Inspector Generals Act. The inspector general has independent investigatory authority over the entire Department of Energy, including the new Agency. This authority includes the authority to direct and conduct investigations unimpeded. To conduct the investigations, the inspector general has, by law, full access to everyone in the department. Those two important pieces of law, existing legislation, are key tools in avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse. I do not believe that we can nor should nor perhaps even intend in this amendment, this underlying amendment, to modify them. But it is unclear and I hope it will be clarified in conference so we do not impede the operation of those laws by this language. Third, the method of appointing certain employees of the new Agency, in my judgment, violates the appointments clause of the Constitution. For instance, in section 213 (j)(1), the amendment says that ``the Under Secretary shall, with the approval of the Secretary and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, designate the chief of Counterintelligence. . . .'' That responsibility, making an appointment, is, under the appointments clause, restricted to the Secretary or the President of the United States. I do not think we can delegate that authority by statute to this new Agency Director. Fourth, there are certain restrictions on how the head of the new Agency submits reports to Congress, which I believe run afoul of the separation of powers doctrine. Fifth, there are still too many restrictions on the Secretary's authority to control and direct the Agency. Sixth, there are provisions which establish new relationships between the Department of Energy contractors and Federal employees of the Department. Those relationships may violate the current operating contracts for DOE facilities. More important, these new relationships may make these contractor employees Federal employees for certain purposes, such as the Federal Authority Claims Act, the Federal Drivers Act, and the Federal ethics statutes. These are a few of the statutes that could be interpreted as being applicable to contractor employees, raising new issues of liability and responsibilities. I believe the implications of these should be and must be fully understood before we finally adopt a law in this area, a reorganization of this Department, and a conference report which contains any such implications or changes. These issues and others should be addressed in conference on this provision. I wanted to highlight them now for our colleagues. We have made some progress on this underlying amendment, on the amendment which I think reflects the determination of most of us that we do create this semiautonomous agency. That represents, I believe, almost the consensus view of the Senate--pretty close to it--that we have a semiautonomous agency. But there are a lot of subquestions to that issue. Just creating a semiautonomous agency does not resolve the myriad of questions that exist in that process. Some of them have now been resolved. I thank my colleagues for their work with me on that. Senator Bingaman has had some very important amendments which have been adopted as well. The Kyl amendment is a better amendment now that those amendments of ours have been added to it. But, again, there are many remaining questions and doubts which, hopefully, the conferees will resolve. I wanted to bring some of those to the attention of our colleague at this time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I don't want to read too much into the Senator from Arizona nodding his head, but I think he is responding positively to how I characterized his suggestion. I ask the Senator from Nebraska if he would, perhaps, yield to me a moment.