Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was enacted in 1977 to encourage banks to serve the credit needs of the entire community including low and middle income areas. The obligations that banks owe to the entire community stem from their charters and the public benefits they receive through the Federal Reserve. The CRA is a way to encourage banks to live up to their public obligation. Nationwide the CRA has been recognized as an effective way to increase credit availability in underserved areas. In his testimony before the House Banking Committee in February, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan remarked, that the CRA has ``very significantly increased the amount of credit in communities'' and the changes have been ``quite profound.'' In 1997 alone, almost 2,000 banks and thrifts reported $64 billion in CRA loans, including 525,000 small business loans worth $34 billion; 213,000 small farm loans totaling $11 billion; and 25,000 community development loans totaling $19 billion. Those loans went to affordable housing projects, economic development through financing small businesses or farms, and activities that revitalize or stabilize low or moderate income areas. CRA has also encouraged a dramatic increase in home ownership by low and moderate income individuals. Between 1993 and 1997, private sector conventional home mortgage lending in low and moderate income census tracts increased by 45%. And the CRA has done so without forcing a large paperwork burden onto banks and without forcing banks to make bad loans. During the same House hearing, Chairman Greenspan alluded to the mutual benefit of the CRA to consumers and banks when he said, ``CRA has helped financial institutions to discover new markets that may have been underserved before.'' While there are countless examples of the Act's effectiveness in encouraging lending in underserved areas all over the country. Here's some examples from Michigan. Lake Osceola State Bank in Baldwin just completed their CRA exam under the reformed 1996 regulations. They said it was not a burden, and they received a rating of outstanding. Under the terms of S. 900, the bill before us today, Lake Osceola State Bank would qualify for an exemption from the CRA because of their size and location, but the bank has told my office that they are not seeking a CRA exemption. To the contrary, they are justifiably proud of the contributions they are making to community development in the Baldwin area. We Care, Inc. is a small non-profit that rehabilitates a few houses a year in Detroit's Van Dyke and 7 Mile area. They say the CRA and National City Bank have been their life-line for credit. Northwest Detroit Neighborhood Development, Inc. is yet another nonprofit organization that has contacted me in support of the CRA. They praised the National Bank of Detroit and Comerica for extending credit to them and supporting their mission of homebuilding in the Brightmore area of Detroit. The Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), a nationally prominent community development group that operates in five Michigan cities, considers the CRA critical to their efforts. In an effort to boost their CRA scores, lenders have sought out groups like LISC and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to develop ``shared risk'' loan pools that offer financing to first time home buyers. Over the past 5 years, more than 400 mortgages were written in six Michigan cities. This has generated over $16 million in direct public and private investment in central city neighborhoods. According to LISC, without the CRA ``these types of programs would not have been established.'' Other Michigan community development groups like U-SNAP- BAC, SWAN and New Hope also rely on loans encouraged by the CRA. Many Michigan mayors have expressed their support for the CRA. They praise the CRA for encouraging private business investment and creating new jobs and businesses in their communities. In addition, money from federal grants is leveraged to obtain millions of dollars in private investment. There are twelve mayors from all over Michigan on this letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors supporting the CRA. I oppose the provisions weakening the CRA included in S. 900, a bill intended to modernize the financial sector of our economy. Both small and large banks in Michigan have received outstanding CRA ratings. The community groups and nonprofits make great use of the resources which are made available through the CRA. The federal independent agency that oversees the nation's banking system says its not onerous and has been very successful. Therefore, I will not support a bill that weakens a program that has been so important to community development efforts in Michigan and nationally.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my good friend from Arizona. Always, he puts his finger on an issue--in this case, on an issue of war and an issue of conscience. And this is an issue of both. There is nobody who more eloquently or doggedly pursues both issues-- war and conscience--and the implications of both. And the experience that he brings--as does our good friend from Georgia, and others--to this body is absolutely indispensable in trying to work its way towards the right conclusion in many of these issues. And I just, again, add my gratitude to what he adds to this body, to this Nation. Mr. President, while I favor the thrust of the resolution before us, I do not favor its timing, and I will vote to table. I want to just take a few moments this evening to explain this. The stakes are tremendously high in Kosovo. We simply must not fail. We cannot fail to succeed in Kosovo. NATO must not fail to succeed in Kosovo. Even before I visited the refugee camps a week or so ago, I felt strongly about this. But meeting with the refugees, of course, reinforces my conclusion about the nature of Mr. Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. This century of ours began with a genocide against Armenians; it is ending with an ethnic cleansing against the Kosovars; and there was a holocaust in between. If we want the next century to be freer of the slaughter that this century has seen in so many wars, we simply must support the united action of a united Europe to stop the success of Milosevic in his goals in Kosovo. Of course, when you read about what the refugees have gone through, and you talk to refugees, it reinforces that determination--the stories of mass executions, mass rapes, the burning of 400 villages by forces that presumably should be protecting those villages, since Milosevic claims sovereignty in Kosovo. But instead of pursuing what sovereigns historically have done, which is to protect people they claim sovereignty over, this particular dictator is trying to destroy the very people of Kosovo. NATO made a statement last week which is of critical importance. It restates a decision on the part of NATO to prevail. And the only way-- the best way, but perhaps the only way--that we are going to have a century next which is more peaceful in Europe and elsewhere than the current century, is if NATO succeeds in its unified determination, as stated in Washington just about a week ago. Two sentences kind of say it all. And those two sentences are these: ``We will not allow Milosevic's campaign of terror to succeed. NATO is determined to prevail.'' This has rarely been true in Europe. I am not sure it has ever been true where we have 19 nations, including the United States and Canada, that have come together to try to stop a genocide from succeeding in their backyard. Europe has been divided before now--France, England on one side, sometimes Germany on another, countries divided into blocs against each other. But now what we have in Europe is the coming together of all of the European nations, making one joint statement about what they will not permit in their own land. ``We will not allow Milosevic's campaign of terror to succeed. NATO is determined to prevail.'' But that unity which is so critical to the success of the mission, I believe, will be negatively impacted if the Senate adopts this resolution that is before us, because this resolution would put this Senate and this Nation ahead of NATO. And we have to work in harmony with NATO, in unity with NATO, in harness with 18 other democracies that have taken a position. And that position is that we are going to pursue, relentlessly, doggedly the success of the military mission and air campaign, the purpose of which is to significantly diminish Milosevic's military capability. That is the current mission. It is hoped the success of that mission will achieve the broader policy objective of being able to return refugees, now over 1 million, to their homes in Kosovo. If that military mission and its success in reducing Milosevic's capability to keep a stranglehold on Kosovo does not achieve the broader mission of being able to return these refugees, at that point we can consider changing the military mission. At that point we can consider the use of ground troops by NATO. Is it prudent to plan for that? Yes, it is. In my judgment, it is prudent to plan for it. Would it be prudent, in fact, to carry it out once the groundwork has been laid and Milosevic's military capability has been significantly weakened? Yes, in my judgment it would be. Most important to the success of this mission, broad and narrow, is NATO's unity. It is my fear that the adoption of this resolution will put us in a significantly different position than the rest of NATO, in advance of a need to do so. NATO is unified on an air campaign. It is not yet unified on a ground campaign. The Apaches alone, after their employment begins, will take 30 to 60 days before they have a significant impact on the ground. That is what General Clark, the commander, has told us. That may not be the common wisdom, common understanding, common media message, but that is the truth, as General Clark believes it--that it will take 30 to 60 days for the Apaches to have an effect after they begin to be employed. So the debate over authorizing ground forces is a premature debate. I believe it will distract us from a current unified mission while we are in the middle of an air campaign. It is for that reason that, with some reluctance, I am going to vote to table the resolution, the general direction of which I support, because it is so critically important that we be unified and united with NATO allies, that we stay together in planning and in execution of a mission which must succeed. We must not be distracted by a premature debate about ground forces. Prudence and common sense would indicate that we plan for such a contingency, but there is no need for us to authorize it at this time. It seems to me, if anything, it will divide and distract, rather than protect that critical unity which is so essential to the success of this mission. Again, I commend my good friend from Arizona and Senator Biden, Senator Lieberman, and the other cosponsors for their support of a very important position, which is that we now must win. That is the thrust of this resolution. Again, while I support that thrust, I will vote to table for the reasons indicated. I thank the Chair and, again, thank my good friend from Arizona.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend. Again, I happen to concur that the planning is prudent and should be underway. It is the commitment to the utilization that I think might divide and distract. Again, I thank him.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this weekend, two very special people, Stan and Iris Ovshinsky, will be honored by the Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving Jewish heritage and Yiddish culture, and to pursuing social and economic justice. The organization's selection of Stan and Iris is most fitting. Their work on behalf of social causes and their love of Yiddish culture has been a constant part of their lives. But what makes Stan and Iris so special is that theirs is also a great love story. Stan and Iris met, fell very much in love, married and dedicated themselves to ``Tikkun Olam,'' the Jewish belief in the responsibility to ``repair the world'' and leave it a better place for future generations. Their steadfast commitment to Tikkun Olam is nowhere more evident than in their work together at Energy Conversion Devices (ECD), the materials technology company they founded in Troy, Michigan in 1960 when they joined their lives together. Stan, a self-taught inventor/scientist who never attended college, began working in the field of amorphous and disordered materials in 1955, when the scientific community regarded them as of little scientific interest. Iris, who has a PhD in biochemistry, joined him in his work after they met. Stan and Iris proved that these materials were of great value scientifically and technologically. Stan's initial paper describing their properties has become one of the five most cited publications in the history of the prestigious Physical Review Letters. That and subsequent papers, some co-authored with Iris, led to a new field of scientific study. From the beginning, Stan and Iris understood the significance of their discoveries. They saw a future in which new engineered materials could be used to improve people's lives, solve societal problems and build new industries. They committed themselves and ECD to that vision and never wavered from it. Always on the cutting edge, often ahead of their time, they have stayed the course. Today, ECD holds over 350 active U.S. patents and over 800 corresponding foreign patients. Amorphous semiconductors and other engineered amorphous and disordered materials are now widely used in an array of products, many of which have been developed and commercialized at ECD. Three technologies exemplify the Ovshinskys' ingenuity and commitment to their vision: Amorphous Silicon Photovoltaics (PV): The Ovshinskys were determined to develop a practical and affordable method of generating electric power from the sun, and pioneered the use of amorphous silicon materials to reduce materials costs and energy used in a highly innovative roll-to-roll solar cell production process. Award winning products using their technologies are already in the marketplace. Ovonuc Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries: The ``Ovonic'' battery is a high performing, nontoxic rechargeable nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery. NiMH batteries are replacing nickel cadmium batteries used in portable electronic devices. Determined to develop products of benefit to society, the Ovshinskys led their company into developing the battery for advanced vehicle technologies to ease growing concerns over air pollution. NiMH batteries are the advanced electric vehicle battery of choice of major auto manufacturers. Computer Information Storage Materials and Devices: The phase change erasable semiconductor materials developed by the Ovshinskys have become the standard in rewritable optical discs. Similar materials employing the same physics show the potential for use in electronic devices that can help the United States recapture its former dominant position in semiconductor memories. The totality of Stan and Iris's achievements is remarkable. They pioneered a new branch of science and then successfully applied this science to develop new technologies and commercial products having significant impacts on the energy and information industries. Because of their efforts to solve major problems through science and technology, the world will be a better place. Now in their 70s, their work and their commitment continue unabated, as does their obvious love for and delight in one another.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has approved the call-up of up to 33,000 Reservists to support NATO operations over Kosovo. Reserve forces are playing an ever-increasing role in military operations. With the downsizing of our Active forces and the increased number of missions, our Armed Forces cannot operate successfully without use of our Reserve component resources. For example, of the 540,000 service members deployed to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 228,000, or 42%, were reservists. Reservists have also answered the call for service in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in Haiti, and Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR/JOINT GUARD in Bosnia. National Guard and Reserve forces are involved in helping Central America recover from the devastation of Hurricane Mitch, and they are routinely called upon to respond to disasters in the United States. As the Reserve components are relied on more and more, even during nornal times they are called away from their civilian jobs more and more. The absence of these men and women from their families, jobs and businesses while they are serving their country on active duty will clearly present some hardships. We should do everything we can do to try minimize any economic hardships that might arise from their absence on their businesses and places of employment. That is why I have cosponsored the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act that Mr. Kerry has introduced today to provide financial and business development assistance to military reservists' small businesses. This legislation will help military reservists who are called away from their jobs and businesses to serve the United States in any military operation with respect to Kosovo by allowing them to defer existing government guaranteed small business loans and giving them access to low interest rate government guaranteed loans to bridge any financial gap that might arise out of their absence. These Reservists will be eligible for assistance if they are an owner, manager or key employee of a small business. This legislation provides more generous loan repayment terms for small business reservists who have SBA loans. It does this by authorizing a deferral of loan repayments for small business reservists on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans. Interest will not accrue during the time that the loan is deferred. The legislation also directs SBA to develop policies such as extending repayments of its government guaranteed loans such as micro loans or 7(a) loans for reservists who are called up for active duty. The deferrals will be available from the date the reservist is called to active duty until 180 days after his or her release from active duty. The legislation also establishes a low interest economic injury loan program to be administered by SBA through its disaster loan program. Such loans would be made available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist to active duty causes economic harm. The legislation also directs the SBA and its private sector partners to make every effort to reach out to those businesses affected by the absence of key employees who are Reservists and provide assistance such as businesses counseling and training for how to run the business in the absence of these key employees. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation designed to reduce any economic hardship created by the absence of active duty reservists from their jobs and businesses and I hope the Senate will act on it quickly.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has approved the call-up of up to 33,000 Reservists to support NATO operations over Kosovo. Reserve forces are playing an ever-increasing role in military operations. With the downsizing of our Active forces and the increased number of missions, our Armed Forces cannot operate successfully without use of our Reserve component resources. For example, of the 540,000 service members deployed to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 228,000, or 42%, were reservists. Reservists have also answered the call for service in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in Haiti, and Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR/JOINT GUARD in Bosnia. National Guard and Reserve forces are involved in helping Central America recover from the devastation of Hurricane Mitch, and they are routinely called upon to respond to disasters in the United States. As the Reserve components are relied on more and more, even during nornal times they are called away from their civilian jobs more and more. The absence of these men and women from their families, jobs and businesses while they are serving their country on active duty will clearly present some hardships. We should do everything we can do to try minimize any economic hardships that might arise from their absence on their businesses and places of employment. That is why I have cosponsored the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act that Mr. Kerry has introduced today to provide financial and business development assistance to military reservists' small businesses. This legislation will help military reservists who are called away from their jobs and businesses to serve the United States in any military operation with respect to Kosovo by allowing them to defer existing government guaranteed small business loans and giving them access to low interest rate government guaranteed loans to bridge any financial gap that might arise out of their absence. These Reservists will be eligible for assistance if they are an owner, manager or key employee of a small business. This legislation provides more generous loan repayment terms for small business reservists who have SBA loans. It does this by authorizing a deferral of loan repayments for small business reservists on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans. Interest will not accrue during the time that the loan is deferred. The legislation also directs SBA to develop policies such as extending repayments of its government guaranteed loans such as micro loans or 7(a) loans for reservists who are called up for active duty. The deferrals will be available from the date the reservist is called to active duty until 180 days after his or her release from active duty. The legislation also establishes a low interest economic injury loan program to be administered by SBA through its disaster loan program. Such loans would be made available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist to active duty causes economic harm. The legislation also directs the SBA and its private sector partners to make every effort to reach out to those businesses affected by the absence of key employees who are Reservists and provide assistance such as businesses counseling and training for how to run the business in the absence of these key employees. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation designed to reduce any economic hardship created by the absence of active duty reservists from their jobs and businesses and I hope the Senate will act on it quickly.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to observe the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day which takes place on April 24. Each year we remember and honor the victims, and pay respect to the survivors we are blessed to still have with us. During the periods 1915-1918 and 1920-1923, approximately 1.5 million Armenians perished under the rule of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The Armenian people fell victim to deportation, expropriation, torture, starvation and massacre. We signify April 24, 1915 as the day of remembrance because of the more than 200 Armenian community leaders who were systematically hunted down in Constantinople on this date. The Armenian genocide was the result of a consciously orchestrated government plan. The United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, stated at the time that, ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact . . . I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.'' In an effort to further our understanding of this tragic period, one of my constituents, Mae Derdarian, has written an important survivor's account of the Armenian genocide. Her book, Vergeen, recounts a thirteen-year old girl's deportation from her home, the atrocities she survived, her escape from her tormentors, and her ultimate triumph over the horrors she witnessed and which were perpetrated on her. In a review of Ms. Derdarian's book, The Detroit Jewish News wrote ``Every now and then a book comes along that haunts the reader long after the last page is turned. Vergeen is one of those stories . . . Mae Derdarian has created a page-turner, combing Vergeen's memoir and her own mother's recorded accounts of what both women endured as survivors of the first genocide of the 20th century.'' Such first-hand accounts from survivors are critical to our understanding of genocide, and help us all to recognize and honor the lives of the victims. Mr. President, each year we remember the horrors suffered by the Armenian people during the periods 1915-1918 and 1920-1923 under the Ottoman Empire. However, it is not enough to simply remember those who have perished. We must dedicate ourselves to see that tragedies such as the Armenian Genocide are not revisited on our planet. This is the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of any genocide. The Armenian people have earned our enduring admiration for withstanding the horrors of two world wars and several decades of Soviet dominance in order to establish modern Armenia. The United States must continue its efforts to support freedom, prosperity and stability in Armenia as we honor and remember the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Congressional Record an article which appears in the April 19, 1999, edition of Forbes magazine regarding Focus: HOPE, an extraordinary organization in Detroit, Michigan which is dedicated to human development. The article follows. [From Forbes, Apr. 19, 1999] Teach A Man To Fish (By Srikumar S. Rao) Eleanor Josaitis can remember the moment in March 1965 her life changed. She was in her comfortable home in a Detroit suburb watching a television program on the Nuremberg trials. A news flash cut in: Selma, Ala. Mounted troopers, wielding electric cattle prods, charged peaceful protesters. Minutes earlier she was pondering what she would have done if she had been in Nazi Germany. A new question intruded: ``What will I do now?'' Two years later Detroit exploded in flames. Touring the decimated area with Father William Cunningham, her weekend parish priest, they swore to alleviate the suffering. But what could be accomplished by a housewife with two young children and a radical priest trained as an English professor? Quite a bit, actually. Focus: Hope, the nonprofit organization they birthed in Detroit's rubble, today occupies well over a million square feet on 40 acres of that once- devastated area. It started with urgent but limited goals-- feeding poor mothers and their infants. Now it has grown into a powerful and world-recognized job-training machine. An education boot camp has lifted nearly 5,000 city residents to high school equivalence and placed them in real jobs. A machinist institute has trained 1,800 urban youngsters in reading blueprints and operating numerically controlled machine tools, and put them in high-paying positions with outfits like GM, Ford and Chrysler. A Center for Advanced Technologies has just started to churn out engineers with bachelor's degrees. Next up: an information technology center, funded by the likes of Microsoft and Cisco Systems, to teach computer skills. Josaitis, age 67, built Focus: Hope on the simple proposition that many of the chronically underemployed yearn for an opportunity to haul themselves into the middle class. She says: ``We are failing our poorest citizens when we don't provide them the means to break out of their poverty.'' What welfare official has not echoed precisely that thought? The Focus: Hope difference is one of execution. Josaitis runs the centers with businesslike efficiency and sets demanding standards for the students. She coddles no one: Use profane language after two warnings and you're out. Steal something and you're out immediately. She believes that discipline and responsibilitly are keys to improvement. Rewards must be earned. That philosophy has made Focus: Hope a landmark in Detroit. It has attracted more than 50,000 Detroit-area volunteers, including big names at the car companies, like Ford Chief Executive Jacques Nasser. A sizable business itself, Focus: Hope employs more than 800 people and has a budget of $68 million, half from government, a third from contracts with for-profit companies and the rest from private contributions. That's eons away from the rather inauspicious beginnings. To get closer to the problem, Eleanor and her husband, the owner of a chain of hobby shops, sold their house and moved into an integrated neighborhood in 1968. Her mother, alarmed for their safety, even hired a lawyer to try to wrest custody of her children away. Eleanor retained custody and bears no animosity toward her mother. She and Father Cunningham, who died of cancer in 1997, began with food. Tapping federal funding, they launched a tiny program to distribute food to pregnant women and small children. It still does that, at last count for 46,000 people a month (half the peak in 1991). The program succeeded so well that it became a model for similar efforts in other states. A food program for senior citizens followed. But Josaitis and Father Cunningham wanted to turn the recipients into productive jobholders. They browbeat and cajoled federal agencies and private foundations to raise $250,000 to start a job-training program. In 1981 they opened the Machinist Training Institute to train Detroit's youths in machining and metalworking, especially for the automobile industry. It's an intensive program that can last for 57 weeks if students choose the entire curriculum. Students spend the first 5 weeks, eight hours a day, learning blueprint reading and some math and working the lathe. On the shop floor they later learn to work with mills, grinders and computer- controlled machine tools. In the classroom they learn more about manufacturing theory and quite a bit about computer- aided design and manufacturing. In a more advanced program they work on commercial production contracts for about $7 an hour in between doses of classroom instruction. Among the students who start the machinist school, 70% stay to the end. For those that do, the job placement rate is 100%. ``We have placed our graduates in all sorts of machine shops,'' says Josaitis. ``Some had never previously hired a minority or a female.'' Josaitis has structured tuition to reflect her philosophy: a helping hand--with strings attached. Tuition for mti is $14,500. Government grants pay about half that, depending on income. The balance is paid through a 5% loan from Focus: Hope. Repayment begins 90 days after graduation--by which time most students have jobs. A further incentive to land and keep a job is that many employers, like General Motors, will pick up half of the student's loan payments. William Motts is one of the success stories. He dropped out of high school in the 11th grade and got his girlfriend pregnant at 18. He pulled in $6 an hour as a maintenance worker at a hotel, struggling to help support his daughter. But he caught a break. He was steered to mti by his father's friend who knew Father Cunningham. He entered the program in 1992 and never looked back. In 1998, he got a bachelor's degree in manufacturing engineering from the University of Detroit, Mercy. Today Motts, 25, is an engineer at General Motors earning around $45,000, and married to a dental hygienist. ``Focus: Hope challenged me to push my boundaries,'' Motts says. ``It forced me to be disciplined. It gave me very marketable skills.'' Focus: Hope helps students surmount practical problems. For examples, it runs a day care center and before- and after- school programs, so parents can attend classes without worry. Josaitis also doesn't want to discard potential candidates who don't have the math, reading or social skills to succeed in a program for machinists. So for the past ten years an educational boot camp called Fast Track has taken students-- average age 26--with 8th grade math and reading skills and brought them up two grade levels. And two years ago, realizing some students needed even more help, she started First Step, to offer more remedial works. More than 80% of those who enter Fast Track finish the program and go on the Machinist Training Institute. Thomas Murphy, a former sergeant major for American troops in Europe who runs Fast Track, can take some credit for that. He is bluff, tough and good-natured. The seven-week Fast Track program runs all day Monday through Friday, and Saturday mornings. ``Saturday classes serve clear notice that we expect real hard work and commitment from them in return for the opportunity we provide,'' Murphy says. Clock in at 8:01 and you get a demerit. Enough demerits and you get booted out. Murphy was initially shocked when a candidate asked him if there was a place where he could nap during breaks. Turned out that he left the institute at 4 p.m., worked an eight- hour shift at a job to support his family and was back at 8 a.m. the next day. Murphy found him a place to nap and overlooked occasional tardiness. ``One of our graduates called me up the other day to announce that he was missing his first day of work in years,'' says Murphy. ``He was closing on a brand new home. His home. The first home anyone in his family had ever owned.'' Josaitis also understands that getting and holding a job requires certain social skills. Thus trainees are taught how to shake hands, make eye contact and absolutely, positively get to jobs on time. Every month Josaitis brings a group of students to a formally laid out dining room where she teaches table manners, from which fork to use to how to make small talk. ``I want you to feel comfortable when you are invited to the White House,'' she tells them. She also takes trainees to formal affairs, such as the opening of the Michigan Opera hosted by Ford's Nasser. In 1993 Focus: Hope decided to offer its best and brightest students a further step up the ladder. It opened the Center for Advanced Technologies, which, in collaboration with local colleges, offers bachelor and associate degrees in manufacturing engineering and technology. The executive dean is Lloyd Reuss, who took the nonpaying job after he was ousted as president of General Motors in 1993. CAT students get classroom instruction plus work in a for- profit manufacturing company located on Focus: Hope grounds. Using next-generation equipment from Cincinnati Milacron, says Reuss, students produce machined parts for outfits including GM, Ford and the Department of Defense. Students accept a below-market $8 an hour on these contracts. In return, they get free tuition. The hands-on part of this apprenticeship is as important as the classroom instruction. Denise Ankofski, candidate for an associate degree and single mother of a 6-year-old son, was milling brake shoes for 5-ton trucks on a defense contract and figured she could do it better by splitting operations and performing them on different machines. She was encouraged to give a technical presentation and her suggestion reduced cycle time on some operations by 80%. When they graduate, CAT students do extremely well. Last year the six CAT bachelor graduates were paid an average of $47,200, compared with the $45,300 earned by Massachusetts Institute of Technology mechanical engineering graduates. ``Graduates are not hired for diversity reasons or charity,'' says Reuss. ``They are hired because they are skilled workers with an excellent ethic.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, passed by the Senate yesterday, incorporates so many projects of importance to the Great Lakes region. I am especially pleased that so many of these projects serve to reinforce the pre-eminent leadership of the Chicago regional office in meeting the environmental responsibilities assigned to the Army Corps of Engineers in past reauthorizations of the Water Resources Development Act. Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 incorporates a very important matter which I have considered a priority for some time. The subject is contaminated sediments and they are a potential threat to public and environmental health across the country. Persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances in contaminated sediment can poison the food chain, making fish and shellfish unsafe for humans and wildlife to eat. Contamination of sediments can also interfere with recreational uses and increase the costs of and time needed for navigational dredging and subsequent disposal of dredged material. Unfortunately, the resources of the federal government have not been brought to bear on these problems in a well coordinated fashion. Section 222 of this Act will require the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to finally activate the National Contaminated Sediment Task Force that was mandated by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. I am hopeful that convening this Task Force will encourage the Federal agencies to work together to combat this problem and create greater public awareness of the need to address contaminated sediments. We also need a better understanding of the quantities and sources of sediment contamination, to prevent recontamination and minimize the recurrence of these costs and impacts, and to get a handle on the extent of the public health threat. To that end, the Act requires the Task Force to report on the status of remedial action on contaminated sediments around the country, including a description of the authorities used in cleanup, the nature and sources of sediment contamination, the methods for determining the need for cleanup, the fate of dredged materials and barriers to swift remediation. Mr. President, as the Democratic Co-Chair of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight several specific programs included in this bill which were developed through the bipartisan and bicameral cooperation of the members of this Task Force. Extension of cost-sharing rules to allow non-traditional partners such as non-profit organizations to partner with the Army Corps of Engineers on restoration activities will greatly expand the potential uses of these authorities in the Great Lakes basin (Sections 205 and 206). Section 224(2) will enhance the authority of the Corps to work cooperatively with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to make more efficient use of Corps' engineering expertise in constructing barriers and traps to reduce these aggressive invaders. Section 225 authorizes a special study on the watershed of the western basin of Lake Erie to enhance the integration of disparate elements of the Corps' program in this region. Section 223, the Great Lakes Basin Program incorporates three high-profile elements critical to the region as a whole which were developed through extensive negotiations among Task Force members at the end of the 105th Congress. The first element of the Great Lakes Basin Program (Section 223a) directs the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a framework for their activities in the Great Lakes basin to be updated biennially. Many Army Corps of Engineers divisions have developed and use such strategic plans. Among other strengths, such plans allow greater programatic coordination--especially among projects conducted for such disparate purposes as navigation, environmental restoration, water quality, and flood control. Development of such a strategic plan for the Great Lakes basin has never been more important than at present, given the recent restructuring of the Army Corps of Engineers which leaves the Great Lakes and Ohio River division as the only Army Corps of Engineers division maintaining two regional offices (Chicago and Cincinnati). The second element of the Great Lakes Basin Program (Section 223b) directs the Army Corps of Engineers to inventory existing information relevant to the Great Lakes biohydrological system and sustainable water use management. The Corps is to report to Congress, as well as to the International Joint Commission and the eight Great Lakes states, on the results of this inventory and recommendations on how to improve the information base. This information is crucial to the ongoing debate regarding attempts to export or divert Great Lakes surface and ground water out of the basin. The closely related provision, contained in subsection (e), on water use activities and policies, allows the Secretary to provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes states in development of interstate guidelines to improve consistency and efficiency of State-level water use activities and policies. The third major element of the Great Lakes Basin Program (Section 223c) directs the Army Corps of Engineers to submit to Congress a report based on existing information detailing the economic benefits of recreational boating in the Great Lakes basin. As many of my colleagues may know, despite Congress' repeated objections, consecutive Administrations have unwisely sought to limit the Corps' role in dredging recreational harbors. Clearly these harbors' value to the regional economy should be recognized in the cost-benefit analyses used in making dredging decisions. For the Great Lakes region, dredging of these recreational harbors will be of increasing importance in the coming year as Great Lakes water levels decline from the high of the past several years. Mr. President, I also wish to take a moment in closing to highlight the several specific projects included in the recently passed bill which will benefit my home state of Michigan. They include an Army Corps feasibility study of improvements to the Detroit River waterfront as part of the ongoing revitalization of the area. The Corps will prepare studies for flood control projects in St. Clair Shores and along the Saginaw River in Bay City. The Corps will consider reconstruction of the Hamilton Dam flood control project and review its denial of the city of Charlevoix's request for reimbursement of construction costs incurred in building a new revetment connection to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor. Finally, the bill includes a unique provision which will allow the use of materials dredged from Toledo Harbor in Ohio for environmental restoration on the Woodtick Peninsula in Michigan. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee in incorporating these important provisions into this bill and look forward to working with them to get these important provisions signed into law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am joining my good friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, as a cosponsor of his bill to limit civil actions against a sitting President. The Supreme Court may have been right in its analysis in Clinton v. Jones that the separation of powers doctrine does not require immunity from civil suit for a sitting President, but it was wrong when it concluded that ``a deluge of such litigation will never engulf the Presidency,'' and when it went on to assert, ``if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely [for the Paula Jones civil suit] to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time.'' No one can reasonably believe that President Clinton didn't spend a significant amount of his time preparing his defense in the Paula Jones case. Moreover, we can all understand how the existence of such a case can be a significant distraction and preoccupation even when it is not being worked on directly. The Supreme Court recognized in its decision in Clinton v. Jones the all-consuming nature of the responsibilities of being President of the United States. The Court wrote: ``As a starting premise, petitioner [the President] contends that he occupies a unique office with powers and responsibilities so vast and important that the public interest demands that he devote his undivided time and attention to his public duties . . . We have no dispute with the initial premise of the argument. Former presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, have consistently endorsed petitioner's characterization of the office. After serving his term, Lyndon Johnson observed: ``Of all the 1,886 nights I was President, there were not many when I got to sleep before 1 or 2 A.M., and there were few mornings when I didn't wake up by 6 or 6:30.'' Being President of the United States is a 24 hour a day job. That's both necessary and desirable. To allow the President to be sued for matters arising from acts committed prior to his taking office makes the President vulnerable to mischievous, possibly politically-motivated and time-consuming litigation. As the leader of our country and the most important political leader in the world, I don't want the President's attention diverted from the many important and consequential responsibilities of the office to defend against lawsuits based on allegations of conduct before the President ran for office and which could have therefore been filed prior to his taking office. That's why I support limiting the involvement of sitting Presidents in civil litigation. Senator Moynihan has taken the first step in addressing this problem. His bill would bar the President from participating in any civil trial involving the President as plaintiff or defendant but would permit discovery to the extent it is carried out with ``due deference to Presidential responsibilities'' and using ``reasonable case management principles.'' The bill would allow a civil suit to be filed and limited discovery to occur, but would not allow a President to proceed to trial as either a plaintiff or defendant. Senator Moynihan has made a thoughtful proposal. However, I prefer that the bill be limited to only those civil cases brought with respect to matters that occurred before the President assumed office or before the President participated in the general election; I would not want to affect cases brought against Presidents for actions they have taken while President in their official capacity. There are a significant number of cases against every President for actions taken during their term in office, and I don't believe we can or should immunize the President from those types of cases. For example, President Truman was sued when he seized the steel plants. President Carter was sued over his decision to return the Panama Canal to Panama. President Reagan was sued regarding the role of America in El Salvador, and President Bush was sued for various matters relating to the Persian Gulf War. I am not commenting on the validity of these suits, I am only saying that such suits should not be disallowed since they are brought against the President in his or her official capacity and they are handled not by the President but by the Department of Justice and White House Legal Counsel. Another class of cases that should be permitted while a President is in office are domestic cases--those related to or involving personal family relationships such as the resolution of a will or an estate or child support. The Supreme Court reported that only three sitting Presidents have been defendants in civil suits involving their actions prior to taking office. These were Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman whose cases were dismissed before they took office, and John F. Kennedy, whose case was settled once he took office. Given the increasing litigious nature of our society, we cannot rely on this history to project what may happen in the future. And given the recent experience of President Clinton and the Paula Jones case, we know the enormous consequences just one such case can have. I look forward to working with Senator Moynihan on this legislation and to getting it enacted in this Congress, before the next President takes office in the year 2001.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. Today, we will authorize the President of the United States to award the congressional gold medal to one of our Nation's greatest heroines, Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks is the mother of the civil rights movement, and we are going to make this medal available and we are going to award this to her because of her extraordinary contributions to America. Forty-three years ago, in December of 1955, an unassuming woman by the name of Rosa Parks decided she would not give up her seat in the front of the bus and move to the back of the bus. It was not scheduled as a media event. It was not intended to be something which would spark a revolution. It, indeed, did spark an American revolution. It unleashed forces in this country, which are positive forces, which have added equal opportunity or fairer opportunity for African Americans and others who have been discriminated against for too many decades and centuries. It was the act of an American citizen who just made a simple, straightforward decision that she is entitled equally to sit on a bus with any other person. She is not going to take an inferior position to anybody. She seeks no advantage over anyone else, but she will not accept an inferior status any longer on a public bus in Alabama. The forces that set in motion have changed this Nation. It has changed this Nation for the better. It has forced us to confront centuries of discrimination against African Americans brought here as slaves and, even after slavery was abolished, too often treated as inferiors in a country that prides itself on treating all of its citizens equally and whose Constitution and Declaration of Independence held out a promise which had been thwarted and which was unfulfilled for our African American citizens. Her arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott. Her stand on that December day in 1955 was not an isolated incident but was actually part of a lifetime of struggle for equality and justice. Twelve years earlier, in 1943, Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's bus- related segregation laws. That earlier law had required African Americans to pay their fares at the front of the bus, then get off the bus and then get on the bus at the back to reboard the bus. As it happened, the driver of the bus in 1955 was the same driver who was driving the bus in 1943. The rest is history. The boycott which Rosa Parks began was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African Americans and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. The Congressional Medal of Honor is a fitting tribute to Rosa Parks, a gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and the demoralization of racial segregation. Rosa Parks, as my friend from Michigan said, is a resident of Michigan, and we are very proud of it. We hope that is acknowledged in the final bill which comes out of the Congress. We are trying to add that fact to the final bill because, as it happens, since 1957, Rosa Parks has been a Michiganian. She and her husband made the journey to Michigan in 1957 because of threats on their lives and persistent harassment by phone. That is what prompted her move to Detroit where Rosa Parks' brother resided. She continues to dedicate her life to advancing equal opportunity and to educating our youth about the past struggles for freedom, from slavery up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In 1987, Rosa Parks and Elaine Eason Steele cofounded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development. Its primary focus has been working with young people in Michigan and from across the country and the world as part of the ``Pathways to Freedom'' program. The pathways program traces history from the days of the underground railroad to the civil rights movement of the sixties and beyond. Through this institute, young people, ages 11 to 17, meet with national leaders and participate in a variety of educational and research projects. During the summer months in particular, many have the opportunity to travel across the country visiting historical sites. In recent years, the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self- Development has expanded to include an intergenerational mentoring and computer skills partnership program. This innovative program teams young people with elderly Americans. Generational and age barriers break down as young people help the elderly develop computer skills, while the elderly provide their unique and personalized recollections of their lives in American history. Each year, the institute matches hundreds of young people with elderly Americans. Since 1987, more than 7,000 youth from around the world have participated in this program. With the work of her institute, we can truly say that in addition to having played a major role in shaping America's past and present, Rosa Parks is playing a major role in shaping America's future. With the dawn of a new millennium at hand, America must ensure that all of our youth are knowledgeable of one of the great national stories of our time and the struggle of African American individuals that finally forced us to honor the principles which founded this country and which had so long been rejected in the real world and in reality, even though they were promised on paper. The Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development ``Pathway to Freedom'' programs preserve the memories of self-sacrifice that African Americans, and so many others, have made to this country's development as truly the land of the free. Madam President, this is great work which Rosa Parks continues to do. She continues to bless us, our Nation, our State with her presence, with her dignity, with her very direct, simple statement about equality. We hopefully will not just award her a medal one of these days, but we will also hopefully support the important work which she continues to do in her institute. We have come a long way in achieving Dr. King's dream and Rosa Parks' dream of justice and equality for all, but we still have a long ways to go. That is going to take a constant rededication to these goals and to the lifetime work of Rosa Parks and to the spirit of human rights which she so embodies and for which the name ``Rosa Parks'' stands. I am proud to join Senator Abraham and others, so many others, in this body and in the other body who have initiated this gold medal for her. We look forward to the day when we are actually able to present to one of the true champions of justice a gold medal which she so truly deserves. I yield the floor and again thank my friend from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are all keenly aware of the demands that we place on our troops, the circumstances in which they must live and work, and the unique sacrifices that they make to serve our country. Filing tax returns is a duty we all must bear to support our nation, but it is particularly difficult for service members overseas, who face this burden thousands of miles from home and without the resources and assistance available to the rest of us. When those troops are placed in harms' way, the burden becomes immeasurably greater. Earlier this year, Senator Coverdell and I introduced S. 767, the Uniformed Services Filing Fairness Act of 1999. This bill would have extended by two months the date by which members of the uniformed services on duty abroad must file their Federal income tax returns. Current Treasury regulations provide for an automatic two month extension for U.S. citizens and residents on military duty outside of the United States. S. 767 would have codified this regulation into law, thereby ensuring that members of the military would not be subject to fines and penalties when they avail themselves of this relief. This week, the President addressed the same problem by issuing an executive order designating the Kosovo area of operations as a ``combat zone'' for the purpose of tax relief benefits. This designation will provide the following benefits: The deadline for filing and paying taxes will be extended; Military pay for months served in the combat zone will be exempt from income taxes; and Telephone calls out of the combat zone will be exempt from the telephone excise tax. Today, the Senate will pass and send to the President a House bill that is a companion measure to bill that Senator Coverdell and I introduced earlier this year. This bill shows Congress' support for the President's decision by codifying this executive order into law. In addition, the bill extends the area covered by the exemption to include not only aircrews flying missions into the combat zone, but also members of the armed forces supporting those operations in the area of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea, and the northern Ionian Sea. I think we all know the dangers and hardships that our troops in these areas are facing on a daily basis, and want to support them in any way we can. I am pleased that Congress, by enacting this bill, will join the President in showing support for our men and women in combat. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the enactment of this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Henry S. Landau on receiving the Humanitarian Award of the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County, Michigan. Mr. Landau is being honored by the Jewish Federation as a ``builder of our future,'' because of the outstanding work he has done to establish programs and institutions to provide education and job training in the community. Henry Landau has served his community, state, and country in countless ways. He served as a trustee of Washtenaw Community College from 1976 to 1982. He also served as chair of the Washtenaw Community College Foundation and was later honored by the college with a lifetime achievement award and an endowed scholarship. Mr. Landau was a Senior Life Director of the National Association of Home Builders and a trustee of the Home Builders Institute. Mr. Landau also served as President of the Michigan Association of Home Builders and was a board member for eighteen years. Henry Landau was instrumental in establishing a unique and innovative program in the Ann Arbor Public School System to teach high school students about the building trades by allowing them to build an actual home. This successful program continues and is now financed through the sale of the homes built by students. The construction industry later honored Mr. Landau's efforts with the H.S. Landau Scholarship, which is awarded annually and benefits a graduate of the Ann Arbor student building program. Mr. President, I have mentioned only a small sampling of the many ways in which Henry Landau has used his vitality, creativity and hard work to make his community and our nation a better place to live. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring Henry Landau for his many extraordinary efforts on behalf of his community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. This legislation will strengthen SBA's women's business centers in Michigan and across the Nation which help entrepreneurs start and maintain successful businesses by providing such things as start-up help and financial expertise to women-owned businesses. This legislation will allow those women's business centers that are already successfully participating in the program to recompete for Federal funding after their initial funding term expires. Under this legislation, the recompetition standards would be set higher than those used for centers applying for their initial five-year funding term. The ability of established and successful women's business development centers to continue to compete for Federal funding means that critical resources will continue to be made available for women-owned businesses for such purposes as training and obtaining business financing. Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of small businesses in America and provide innumerable jobs and resources to the state of Michigan. Michigan has two women's business centers, the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development (CEED) in Ann Arbor and the Grand Rapids Opportunities for Women (GROW) in Grand Rapids. We also have Project Invest in Traverse City which is a women's business center affiliate. In addition, a Center is currently being set up in Detroit. These Michigan programs offer women a comprehensive package of business education and training, start-up financing, technical assistance, peer group support and access to community and government supportive resources such as child care. Michigan's women's business centers are supportive of this legislation and believe it is necessary in order for them to continue to be able to offer the current levels of services and support to Michigan's women-owned businesses. I am pleased that Congress has recognized the importance of funding the women's business center program. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation to make the 1991 pilot project a permanent part of the Small Business Administration programs available to help entrepreneurs start and maintain successful business. It also doubled the annual funding of the women's business centers and extended the funding period from 3 to 5 years. And just this year, Congress enacted legislation to change the non-Federal and Federal funding ratio requirements and it again increased the annual authorization level from $8 million to $11 million. The legislation being introduced today by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, in addition to allowing existing women's business centers to compete for additional Federal funding, will also increase the authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 from $11 million to $12 million for this program.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. This legislation will strengthen SBA's women's business centers in Michigan and across the Nation which help entrepreneurs start and maintain successful businesses by providing such things as start-up help and financial expertise to women-owned businesses. This legislation will allow those women's business centers that are already successfully participating in the program to recompete for Federal funding after their initial funding term expires. Under this legislation, the recompetition standards would be set higher than those used for centers applying for their initial five-year funding term. The ability of established and successful women's business development centers to continue to compete for Federal funding means that critical resources will continue to be made available for women-owned businesses for such purposes as training and obtaining business financing. Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of small businesses in America and provide innumerable jobs and resources to the state of Michigan. Michigan has two women's business centers, the Center for Empowerment and Economic Development (CEED) in Ann Arbor and the Grand Rapids Opportunities for Women (GROW) in Grand Rapids. We also have Project Invest in Traverse City which is a women's business center affiliate. In addition, a Center is currently being set up in Detroit. These Michigan programs offer women a comprehensive package of business education and training, start-up financing, technical assistance, peer group support and access to community and government supportive resources such as child care. Michigan's women's business centers are supportive of this legislation and believe it is necessary in order for them to continue to be able to offer the current levels of services and support to Michigan's women-owned businesses. I am pleased that Congress has recognized the importance of funding the women's business center program. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation to make the 1991 pilot project a permanent part of the Small Business Administration programs available to help entrepreneurs start and maintain successful business. It also doubled the annual funding of the women's business centers and extended the funding period from 3 to 5 years. And just this year, Congress enacted legislation to change the non-Federal and Federal funding ratio requirements and it again increased the annual authorization level from $8 million to $11 million. The legislation being introduced today by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, in addition to allowing existing women's business centers to compete for additional Federal funding, will also increase the authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 from $11 million to $12 million for this program.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Latin-Americans for Social and Economic Development, Inc. (LA SED.) LA SED, a remarkable organization in my home state of Michigan, will celebrate its 30th Anniversary on May 5, 1999. For thirty years now, LA SED has served Hispanics and the residents of Southwest Detroit through broad-based social programs. While championing the welfare of the Latino community, it has also addressed the issues that affect the diverse ethnic populations in Southwest Detroit. From education to advocacy and much more, LA SED's far- reaching hand has helped thousands of Detroit's most deserving citizens achieve a higher standard of living. Over the years, LA SED has grown to become one of Detroit's premier multi-purpose social service agencies. As it celebrates this important milestone, I am sure its staff, friends and supporters will have the opportunity to recall its many successes. I am pleased to join with them in thanking LA SED for its efforts while applauding all the hard work and determination that have resulted in its prestigious reputation. Mr. President, LA SED can take pride in the many important achievements of its first thirty years. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting the accomplishments of LA SED's first three decades and in wishing it continued success for the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Abraham, Robb, Helms, and Feingold, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. This bill, if enacted, would eliminate the requirement for Federal agencies to purchase products made by Federal Prison Industries and require FPI to compete commercially for Federal contracts. It would implement a key recommendation of the Vice President's National Performance Review, which concluded that we should ``Take away the Federal Prison Industries' status as a mandatory source of federal supplies and require it to compete commercially for Federal agencies' business.'' Most importantly, it would ensure that the taxpayers get the best possible value for their federal procurement dollars. Mr. President, Federal Prison Industries has repeatedly claimed that it provides a quality product at a price that is competitive with current market prices. Indeed, the Federal Prison Industries statute requires them to do so. That statute states, and I quote, that FPI may provide to Federal agencies products that ``meet their requirements'' at prices that do not ``exceed current market prices.'' Indeed, FPI would appear to have a significant advantage in any head- to-head competition, since FPI pays inmates less than $2 an hour, far below the minimum wage and a small fraction of the wage paid to most private sector workers in competing industries. The taxpayers also provide a direct subsidy to Federal Prison Industries products by picking up the cost of feeding, clothing, and housing the inmates who provide the labor. There is no reason why we should provide an indirect subsidy as well, by requiring Federal agencies to purchase products from FPI even when they are more expensive and of a lower quality than competing commercial items. Yet, FPI remains unwilling to compete with the private sector, or even to permit Federal agencies to compare their products and prices with those available in the private sector. Indeed, FPI recently published a proposed rule which would expressly prohibit Federal agencies from conducting market research, as they would ordinarily do, to determine whether the price and quality of FPI products is comparable to what is available in the commercial marketplace. Instead, federal agencies are required to contact FPI, which will act as the sole arbiter of whether the product meets the agency's requirements. The proposed rule states: A contracting activity should not solicit bids, proposals, quotations, or otherwise test the market for the purpose of seeking alternative sources to FPI. . . . the contracting officer or activity should contact FPI, and FPI will determine . . . whether an agency's requirement can be met by

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the budget resolution which the majority has presented to the Senate. In my judgement, this budget represents the wrong priorities. It places too great an emphasis on tax breaks which largely benefit the wealthiest among us and too little on the protection of Medicare. Just six years ago, the nation was faced with annual deficits of more than $300 billion as far as the eye could see. In 1993, President Clinton presented and Congress approved by one vote in each House a deficit reduction plan that continues to pay dividends. Instead of billions of dollars of federal deficits, surpluses are forecast for the next fifteen years. This is a remarkable accomplishment. It presents us with the opportunity to make critical investments in the nation's future and to reduce the national debt. However, we must act wisely. We have seen many federal budget estimates, and we know well that as quickly as these surpluses appeared, they could 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. That is not their fault. We have some of the brightest economists in the country working at CBO and at OMB and they do a very good job, but they have a difficult task to do. Forecasting the performance of the economy, particularly over the course of several years is more art than science. For instance, last August CBO estimated that the unified budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 was $79 billion. Just four months later in a January 1999 CBO document, the surplus for fiscal year 2000 is estimated at $130 billion. This is a change of over 60% in just four months and early indications are that in August the surplus amounts will rise even higher. I believe that if most Americans were confronted with such uncertainty over their own budget situation, they would recommend a cautious course. I agree. The President has established the framework for this new budget debate by his determination to strengthen Social Security. There is no more important or effective program. Two-thirds of those who collect Social Security rely on it for more than 50% of their income. The President's plan to save Social Security through debt retirement is largely intact in this resolution. This is a significant victory for the President and the American people, and it has broad support in the Senate. I look forward to supporting the legislation to implement this policy of debt reduction . Unfortunately, the majority party has not included the President's policy of debt reduction to shore up Medicare in this resolution. The President set aside fifteen percent of the surplus for Medicare, but this resolution does not. This omission is crucial when one considers that although Social Security is already solvent through 2033, Medicare is solvent only until 2008. We all know how important the Medicare program is. Today the Medicare program provides health care to 39 million Americans. By 2032, the number of Medicare beneficiaries will double to 78 million as the baby boomers retire. Considering these demographics, it is unwise not to use part of our current budget surplus to help shore up the Medicare program, which will also need structural reforms. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not shore up existing commitments to Medicare and our seniors. Instead this resolution takes us back to the bad old days of backloaded tax breaks whose real costs explode several years after enactment. For example, the GOP tax plan uses $177 billion of the surplus in the first five years after enactment and actually has no cost in the first year. But, in the second five years, the cost of the tax cut more than triples to $664 billion. This budgetary time bomb is set go off at the same time as the Medicare trust fund is expected to be bankrupt. Senator Kennedy's amendment, which I supported, would have set aside part of the surplus for the Medicare trust fund and avoided this outcome. The Kennedy amendment was defeated. The Republican majority, unfortunately, seems headed yet again this year for a showdown with the President and Democrats in the Congress over the budget. Amendment No. 145

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Wayne County Medical Society, which is celebrating its sesquicentennial anniversary on April 14, 1999. The Wayne County Medical Society has been an important part of the Metro Detroit community for the past 150 years. The Wayne County Medical Society was formed in 1849 with 50 physicians, who committed themselves to providing the best quality medical care to the people of Wayne County. The Society has been engaged in many important public health campaigns throughout its history. One of the most notable examples was the Society's massive polio immunization drive of 1964, led by Dr. Francis P. Rhoades, which virtually eliminated the disease from the City of Detroit. Today, the 4,200 members of the Wayne County Medical Society work together to provide free health care services for people in need. The Society maintains a free medical and dental clinic in Detroit, where needy children receive physical exams, health education and dental treatment. The Society also sponsors an annual Christmas party for children in foster care. In 1998, the Wayne County Medical Society held a conference for more than 500 Detroit Public School children on the subject of teen pregnancy. In addition to its public service endeavors, the Society encourages excellence in health care by offering Continuing Medical Education credits to its members and by joining with the Michigan State Medical Society and the American Medical Association to promote issues of importance to the medical community at large. Mr. President, the Wayne County Medical Society has been a valued member of the Metro Detroit community since 1849. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking the members of the Society for their commitment, and in wishing them continued success as they address the health needs of the 21st century.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator Thompson, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999. This is the same legislation we developed in the last Congress, and it includes the changes we agreed to last year with the Administration. This is the legislation the President has agreed to sign if we present it to him in this form. And I am hopeful we can get it to him this year and get these important processes enacted into law. Senator Thompson and I are pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Voinovich, Robb, Abraham, Rockefeller, Roth, Daschle, Stevens, Moynihan, Cochran, Breaux, Frist, Enzi, Grams, Grassley, and Lincoln. The Regulatory Improvement Act would put into law basic requirements for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of the rulemaking process. Mr. President, I've fought for regulatory reform since 1979, the year I came to the Senate. As for an overall regulatory reform bill, I've supported such legislation since 1980, when the Senate first passed S. 1080, the Laxalt Leahy bill only to have it die later that year in the House. Those of us who believe in the benefits of regulation to protect health and safety have a particular responsibility to make sure that regulations are sensible and cost-effective. When they aren't, the regulatory process--which is so vital to our health and well being-- comes under constant attack and the regulations which we count on to protect us fail to achieve the maximum effectiveness. We miss the opportunity to do more with the resources we have. By requiring a regulatory process that is open and requires agencies to use good science and common sense, we immunize that process from attack and improve the quality of our regulations. Based on the principles of better cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, more flexibility for the regulated industries to reach legislative goals in a variety of ways, more cooperative efforts between government and industry and less ``us versus them'' attitudes, Senator Thompson and I, in cooperation with the Administration, have developed this bill. Let me highlight some important features of this legislation. The bill would put into statute requirements for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of the rulemaking process. It requires agencies to do a cost-benefit analysis when issuing rules that cost $100 million, or are otherwise designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as having other significant impacts. The agency must determine whether the benefits of the rule justify its costs; whether the rule is more cost-effective, or provides greater net benefits, than other regulatory options considered by the agency; and whether the rule adopts a flexible regulatory option. If the agency determines that the rule does not do so, the agency is required to explain the reasons why it selected the rule, including any statutory provision that required the agency to select the rule. We say right from the beginning, in the section on findings, that cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment are useful tools to help agencies issue reasonable regulations. However, as we explicitly state, they do not replace the need for good judgment and the agencies' consideration of social values in deciding when and how to regulate. The bill requires an agency issuing a major rule to evaluate the benefits and costs of a ``reasonable number of reasonable alternatives reflecting the range of regulatory options that would achieve the objective of the statute as addressed by the rulemaking.'' The bill doesn't require an agency to look at all the possible alternatives, just a reasonable number; but it does require the agency to pick a selection of options that are available to it within the range of the rulemaking objective. We define benefits very broadly. Nothing in this bill suggests that the only benefits assessed by an agency should be quantifiable. On the contrary, this bill explicitly recognizes that many important benefits may be nonquantifiable, and that agencies have the right and authority to fully consider such benefits when doing the cost-benefit analysis and when determining whether the benefits justify the costs. If the rule involves a risk to health, safety or the environment, the bill requires the agency to do a quality risk assessment to analyze the benefits of the rule. All required risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses for rules costing $500 million would undergo independent peer review. During the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, the rulemaking agency is required to consider substitution risks--that is, risks that could be expected to result from the implementation of the regulatory option selected by the agency--and to compare the risk being regulated with other risks with which the public may be familiar. The risk assessment requirement establishes basic elements for performing risk assessments, many of which will provide transparency for an agency's development of a rule, and it requires guidelines for such assessments to be issued by OIRA in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Peer review is required by this bill for both cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments, but only once per rule. Peer review is not required at both the proposed and final rule stages. The cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit determinations, and risk assessment are required to be included in the rulemaking record and to be considered by the court, to the extent relevant, only in determining whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, if the agency fails to perform the cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment or peer review, the court may remand or invalidate the rule, giving due regard to prejudicial error, and in any event shall order the agency to perform the missing assessment or analysis. The bill codifies the review procedure now conducted by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and requires public disclosure of OIRA's review process. Finally, the bill requires the Director of OMB to contract for a study on the comparison of risks to human health, safety and the environment and a study to develop a common basis for risk communication with respect to carcinogens and noncarcinogens and the incorporation of risk assessments into cost-benefit analyses. Mr. President, the cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments required by the bill are intended to be transparent to the public. Agencies should not hide the important information that forms the basis of their regulatory actions. Another important provision of this bill is the one that requires the agency to make a reasonable determination whether the benefits of the rule justify the costs and whether the regulatory option selected by the agency is substantially likely to achieve the objective of the rulemaking in a more cost effective manner or with greater net benefits than the other regulatory options considered by the agency. This is not in any way a decisional criteria that the agency must meet. If, as the agency is free to do, it chooses a regulatory option where the benefits do not justify the costs or that is not more cost effective or does not provide greater net benefits than the other options, the agency is required to explain why it did what it did and list the factors that caused it to do so. Those factors could be a statute, a policy judgment, uncertainties in the data and the like. There is no added judicial scrutiny of a rule provided for or intended by this section. The final rule must still stand or fall based on whether the court finds that the rule is arbitrary or capricious in light of the whole rulemaking record. That is the current standard of judicial review. The bill says that if an agency ``cannot'' make the determinations required by the bill, it has to say why it can't. Use of the word ``cannot'' does not mean that an agency rule can be overturned by a court for its failure to pick an option that would permit the agency to make the determinations required by the bill. The agency is free to use its discretion to regulate under the substantive statute, and there is no implication that such rule must meet the standards described in the determinations subsection. This legislation requires only that the agency be up front with the public as to just how cost-beneficial and cost-effective its regulatory proposal is. Judicial review has been of great concern to those of us who want real regulatory reform without bottling up important regulations in the courts. There is no judicial review permitted of the cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment required by this bill outside of judicial review of the final rule. The analysis and assessment are included in the rulemaking record, but there is no judicial review of the content of those items or the procedural steps followed or not followed by the agency in the development the analysis or assessment. Only the total failure to actually do the cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment would allow the court to remand the rule to the agency. Finally, as I noted, the bill reflects agreement with the Administration. Among the key aspects of that agreement are added clarification on the avoidance of a so-called ``supermandate;'' clarification of the provisions for peer review; and deletion of provisions that would have required periodic reviews of existing rules. So those are some highlights. A hearing on the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee is planned for April. We are pleased that we have the support of the state and local government organizations, namely the National Governor's Association, the National League of Cities, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, as well as dozens of business organizations, the school boards, state environmental directors, and leading experts and scholars across the country. I feel strongly that this bill will improve the regulatory process, will build confidence in the regulatory programs that are so important to this society's well-being, and will result in better, more protective regulations because we will be directing our resources in more cost-effective ways. I thank Senator Thompson and his staff, Paul Noe, for their persistent and hard work in keeping this effort going. I ask unanimous consent that the July 15, 1998, letter to me from Jacob Lew, Director of OMB, be included in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Knights of Columbus Council 414, of Bay City, Michigan. Council 414 is celebrating its 100th anniversary on April 16, 1999. The history of the Knights of Columbus stretches back 117 years, when Father Michael J. McGivney founded the fraternal order in 1882. Since the order's founding, Knights of Columbus have promoted the Catholic faith and have practiced the principles of charity, unity and fraternity. When Father McGivney passed away in 1890, there were 5,000 Knights of Columbus located in 57 councils in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Just 15 years after his death, the Knights of Columbus was established in every state of the union, as well as in Canada, Mexico and the Philippines. Bay City Council 414, known then as Valley Council 414, was established in 1899, 17 years after the founding of the order by Father McGivney. It is the third oldest Knights of Columbus council in the State of Michigan. The driving force behind the founding of Council 414 was Edward J. Schreiber. He and 48 other men were responsible for establishing Council 414's charter, which was issued on April 16, 1899. Since its chartering, Council 414 has helped to establish other Knights of Columbus councils in the area, and has participated in the many community service activities for which the Knights of Columbus are renowned. Perhaps most notably, Council 414's members raise money each year in ``Tootsie Roll Drives'' to support organizations like Special Olympics, the Bay Arenac School District and special education programs. Mr. President, the members of the Knights of Columbus Council 414 of Bay City, Michigan, are truly deserving of recognition for their century-long dedication to promoting the teachings of the Catholic Church, and for living those teachings by serving those in need in their community. I hope my colleagues will join me in offering congratulations to Council 414's members on its 100th anniversary, and in wishing them continued success in their next 100 years.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Delaware. His leadership is what carried this resolution to a bipartisan conclusion, along with the Senator from Virginia. I pay particular, really, homage to both of them. This is a very difficult vote for all of us, whichever side of this resolution we voted on. It is very important it be a bipartisan vote. It is important to our troops, first and foremost. It is important we send a bipartisan message to Milosevic so there not be any misunderstanding or miscalculation. The leaders in the effort to do that were the first two names on that resolution, and they are Senators Biden and Warner. I commend them for their leadership. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cosponsor this resolution because, year after year, we have asked Europe to take the lead before we are leading in their own back yard, to become united, to take care of troubles before they spread. They have done so. They are now waiting for us. It has been asked, will our European allies stay with us? That is not the question. The question is whether we will now join our European allies who are waiting for us to sound a clear call that we will not permit ethnic cleansing to spread to destabilize a region and to destabilize Europe. The stakes here are huge. The objective here, we should be very clear, is to reduce the military capability of Milosevic to ``ethnically cleanse'' Kosovo and thereby touch off a broader war and massive instability in Europe. That is our military objective--to reduce that military capability to ethnically cleanse Kosovo. If we had acted earlier in Bosnia, we could have avoided that genocide. We did not act. NATO has now decided to act, and it is the future stability of Europe which we are going to help determine here tonight, as well as the support for our troops. It was asked of the President, ``Request our support, Mr. President.'' We heard that at the White House over and over again. The President has now requested our support. Our military leaders have set forth a clear military objective. They have done so before the Armed Services Committee. They have done so before other committees and each of us. So now it is up to us to decide whether or not we will support our troops, and whether we will support NATO. The risks of not acting are greater than the risks of acting. Mr. President, I believe it is important for the United States to participate in NATO air and missile strikes. NATO is ready to act because of the threat that the conflict in Kosovo could spread to the neighboring countries of Macedonia, Albania, and Bosnia and could involve nations such as Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, and to prevent a humanitarian disaster. I believe the military mission for our forces should be clearly and carefully stated as to reduce the military capability of the Serbian special police and Yugoslav Army to ethnically cleanse Kosovo and touch off a broader war and major instability in Europe. It is tempting and would be easy to justify NATO action against the Serbian police and Yugoslav Army forces as a way to punish Milosevic. He has destroyed the economy of former Yugoslavia; shut down its independent media; ousted all democracy-learning professors from its universities and substituted his cronies; has threatened President Djukanovic of the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro, who favors democracy and a free market economy; has seized privately-owned property, including property owned by an American citizen; and has violated every agreement he has ever made, including, in particular, the Dayton Peace Accords and the October 12, 1998 agreement with Richard Holbrooke. But it is the threat to regional peace and security that justifies NATO air strikes. The United States is the leader of NATO and the credibility of NATO is on the line; the future stability of Europe is on the line; and the ethnic cleansing of the population of Kosovo is on the line. With all of these important interests on the line, I believe the United States must do its part, in cooperation with our NATO allies, to carry out air operations and missile strikes to reduce the military capability of the Serbian special police and Yugoslav Army to ethnically cleanse Kosovo and touch off a broader war and create major instability in Europe. I have been a strong supporter of the development of the European Security and Defense Identity within NATO and I want to take particular note of the role that our NATO allies have been and are playing with respect to Kosovo. First of all, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or OSCE--a European dominated Organization of 55 nations--stepped up to the plate and established the Kosovo Verification Mission or KVM. The KVM has as its mission the monitoring of compliance with the October 1998 agreement negotiated between Ambassador Holbrooke and President Milosevic. Because the OSCEs KVM is unarmed, NATO established an Extraction Force, which, as the name implies, is designed to come to the aid of KVM personnel and to remove them from situations in which their safety might be imperiled. The Extraction Force is led by a French general and is made up entirely of forces provided by our NATO allies. The United States has provided 2 military personnel to serve in the Extraction Force headquarters, but no combat forces. Once again, our NATO allies delivered. When NATO was planning for a ground force to implement an interim peace agreement in Kosovo with the consent of the parties, it was decided that approximately 28,000 troops would be needed. Our NATO allies agreed to provide more than 24,000 troops. The United States would contribute less than 4,000 troops to that force. The on-scene commander for the force would have been a British general. The force contribution of our NATO allies would dominate the force. Once again, our NATO allies delivered. And the foreign ministers of Great Britian and France co-chaired the negotiations that provided the opportunity for a peaceful settlement of this crisis. Finally, Mr. President, I want to describe my visit to Kosovo in November. In the course of that visit, I accompanied a U.S. Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission team on its daily tour that stopped in the village of Malisevo. Malisevo was a ghost town. The Kosovar Albanians who had previously lived there were afraid to return because of the damage that had been caused by the Serbian special police and Yugoslav Army and the continuing presence of Serbian police forces in the village. In order to conceal the extent of the destruction they had wrought, the Serbian forces had bulldozed a large square block of the village and carted off the debris. The bullet and shell holes in the remaining structures bore silent witness to the cruel way in which President Slobodan Milosevic's forces punished the civilian population in response to the resistance of the Kosovo Liberation Army or KLA. Kosovo is the scene of a horrendous humanitarian disaster. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated last week that at least 230,000 persons were displaced within Kosovo as a result of the conflict and a further 170,000 have fled from Kosovo in the past year. That adds up to a total of about 400,000 people who had fled their homes. That number increases on a daily basis as Milosevic's forces continue their rampage. During my visit to Kosovo, I met with the political representative of the KLA, Adem Demaci, with the elected President of the Kosovo shadow government, Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, and with the editor of the Albanian language newspaper Koha Ditore, Veton Surroi. My meeting with Adem Demaci, the then political representative of the KLA, who was first arrested in 1958 and, by his own admission has been fighting for Kosovo independence, ever since, had spent 28 years in Yugoslav jails for his campaign for independence for Kosovo, involved a friendly and occasionally heated discussion. He stated that he could not endorse any agreement that did not have a guarantee that the ethnic Albanians could decide their own future after three years. Mr. Demaci resigned his position in protest when Kosovar Albanian negotiators' agreed in principle to the agreement at Rambouillet. Dr. Rugova, who has consistently espoused a policy of peaceful resistance, stated his preference for the agreement to provide a mechanism for the people to express their will at the end of three years but was flexible on that point since he was committed to reaching an agreement that would stablize the situation. Dr. Rugova and a number of his lieutenants participated as part of the ethnic Albanian negotiating team that went to Rambouillet. Veton Surroi, who has courageously published an independent newspaper in Pristina, the capitol of Kosovo, expressed his concern about achieving an agreement in view of the difficulty he anticipated in reconciling the positions of the KLA and the Rugova camp. He was not optimistic. He also participated in the Rambouillet negotiations as a member of the ethnic Albanian team. Mr. President, despite the Kosovar Albanians strong desire for independence, a goal which is supported by the international community and is not provided for by the Interim Peace Agreement, they signed that Agreement. The Yugoslav delegation, by contrast, has stonewalled and, as characterized by Mr. Verdine and Mr. Cook as co-chairmen of the negotiations, ``has tried to unravel the Rambouillet Accords.'' And Slobodan Milosevic, when given a final chance to avoid NATO air and missile attacks, stubbornly continued his ethnic cleaning of Kosovo. I will support the resolution, of which I am an original cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. LEVIN

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