Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Maine for her leadership, her kind words, and for her bill, which I am proud to cosponsor. The bill I am introducing today, with her support and the support of Senator Durbin, addresses the same kinds of practices. These two bills together, if adopted, would go a long way toward addressing the deceptive mailing practices that we see under the general heading of ``sweepstakes.'' The bill that I am introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Collins and Senator Durbin, will help eliminate the deceptive practices in mailings that use games of chance, like sweepstakes, to induce consumers to purchase a product that they may not need and to play a game that they will not win. I originally introduced this bill last year. It was not enacted. It was introduced late in the session. I am very hopeful that this bill and Senator Collins' bill will be enacted this year following the hearings that she has just described--important hearings which I commend our chairman of the subcommittee for scheduling, for initiating. The bill that I am introducing--this part of the remedy for the current abuses--will stiffen the penalties for deceptive mailings, will give the Postal Service administrative subpoena power, will restrict the use of misleading language and symbols, and require better disclosure about chances of winning and statements that no purchase is necessary to win. The elderly are easy prey for the gimmicks used in these kinds of contests, such as a large notice declaring the recipient a winner-- oftentimes a ``guaranteed'' winner or one of two final competitors for a large cash prize--and these gimmicks have proliferated to the point that American consumers are being duped into purchasing products they don't want or need because they think they have won or will win a big prize if they do so. Complaints about these mailings are one of the top ten consumer complaints in the nation. I have received numerous complaints from my constituents in Michigan asking that something be done to provide relief from these very misleading mailings. In early September 1998, we held a hearing in our Governmental Affairs Committee federal services subcommittee on the problem of deceptive sweepstakes and other mailings involving games of chance. We learned from three of our witnesses, the Florida Attorney General, the Michigan Assistant Attorney General and the Postal Inspection Service, that senior citizens are particular targets of these deceptive solicitations, because they are the most vulnerable. State Attorneys General have taken action against many of the companies that use deceptive mailings. The states have entered into agreements to stop the most egregious practices, but the agreements apply only to the states that enter into the agreements. This allows companies to continue their deceptive practices in other states. That's one reason why federal legislation in this area is needed. The bill I'm introducing today will help eliminate deceptive practices by prohibiting misleading statements, requiring more disclosure, imposing a $10,000 civil penalty for each deceptive mailing, and providing the Postal Service with additional tools to pursue deceptive and fraudulent offenders. Sweepstakes solicitations are put together by teams of clever marketers who package their sweepstakes offers in such a way so as to get people to purchase a product by implying that the chances of winning are enhanced if the product being offered is purchased. That is not allowed. You cannot require that a purchase be made in order to win a prize. But these deceptive practices are such and they are so finely honed that, no matter what the fine print says about no purchase being necessary, the recipient of the mailing often is led to believe, by the nature of the mailing, that a purchase indeed will enhance the opportunity to win the prize. Senator Collins addresses the sum of those issues in her bill. Rules and important disclaimers are written in fine print and hidden away in obscure sections of the solicitation or on the back of the envelope that is frequently tossed away. Even when one can find and read the rules, it frequently takes a law degree to understand them. The bill I am introducing will help to protect consumers from deceptive practices by directing the Postal Service to develop and issue regulations that restrict the use of misleading language and symbols in direct mail game of chance solicitations, including sweepstakes. The bill also requires additional disclosure about chances of winning and the statement that no purchase is necessary. Any mail that is designated by the Postal Service as being deceptive will not be delivered. This will significantly reduce the deceptive practices being used in the direct mail industry to dupe unsuspecting consumers into thinking they are grand prize winners. The direct mail industry also would benefit, in that the adverse publicity recently aimed at the industry because of ``You Have Won a Prize'' campaigns has maligned the industry as a whole. Cleaning up deceptive advertising could improve the industry's image. For those entities that continue to use deceptive mailings, my bill imposes a civil penalty of $10,000 for each piece of mail that violates Postal Service regulations. Currently the Postal Service can impose a fine for noncompliance with a Postal Service order. My bill imposes a fine whether or not the order actually has been issued. This has the effect of applying the penalty to the deceptive offense, not for noncompliance with the order. My bill also allows the Postal Service to quickly respond to changes in deceptive marketing practices by giving the Postal Service the authority to draft regulations that will be effective against the ``scheme du jour.'' A deceptive practice used today, may not be used tomorrow. As soon as the Post Office learns about one scheme, it changes. If legislation is passed that requires a specific notice, it can take just a short time before another deceptive practice pops up to by-pass the legislation. My bill gives the Postal Service the authority to evaluate what regulatory changes will be required to keep pace with the ever changing deceptive practices. This will help weed out deceptive practices in a timely manner. The bill also gives the Postal Service administrative subpoena power to respond more quickly to deceptive and fraudulent mail schemes. Currently the Postal Service must go through a lengthy administrative procedure before it can get evidence to shut down illegal operations. Currently the $10,000 fine--and civil penalty which exists--can only be imposed for noncompliance with a Postal Service order. There has to be an order issued which is violated before there can even be a civil fine. Our bill would impose a fine for violating the law, a penalty for perpetrating the deceptive offense or practice, and it would not require that there be an order previously entered. By the time the Postal Service gets through all the administrative hoops, the sweepstakes promoter may have folded up operations and disappeared, or has destroyed all the evidence. By granting the Postal Service limited subpoena authority to obtain relevant material records for an investigation, the Postal Service will be able to act more efficiently against illegal activities. Subpoena authority will make the Postal Service more effective and efficient in its pursuit of justice. The Deceptive Sweepstakes Mailings Elimination Act of 1999 takes a tough approach to dealing with sweepstakes solicitations and other games of chance offerings that are sent through the mail. If you use sweepstakes or a game of chance to promote the sale of a legitimate product, provide adequate disclosure, and abide with Postal Service regulations, then the Postal Service will deliver that solicitation. If deceptive practices are used in a sweepstakes or a game of chance solicitation, the Postal Service will be able to stop the solicitation and impose a significant penalty. So we are going to take a tough approach, both through Senator Collins' bill which I have cosponsored, through my bill which she has cosponsored, along with others, and this tough approach that is absolutely essential if we are going to protect seniors and others from the kind of deceptive practices which cost them so much money by encouraging them, through these practices, to buy items that they really do not want in order to win prizes that truly are unlikely or impossible to win.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Maine for her leadership, her kind words, and for her bill, which I am proud to cosponsor. The bill I am introducing today, with her support and the support of Senator Durbin, addresses the same kinds of practices. These two bills together, if adopted, would go a long way toward addressing the deceptive mailing practices that we see under the general heading of ``sweepstakes.'' The bill that I am introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Collins and Senator Durbin, will help eliminate the deceptive practices in mailings that use games of chance, like sweepstakes, to induce consumers to purchase a product that they may not need and to play a game that they will not win. I originally introduced this bill last year. It was not enacted. It was introduced late in the session. I am very hopeful that this bill and Senator Collins' bill will be enacted this year following the hearings that she has just described--important hearings which I commend our chairman of the subcommittee for scheduling, for initiating. The bill that I am introducing--this part of the remedy for the current abuses--will stiffen the penalties for deceptive mailings, will give the Postal Service administrative subpoena power, will restrict the use of misleading language and symbols, and require better disclosure about chances of winning and statements that no purchase is necessary to win. The elderly are easy prey for the gimmicks used in these kinds of contests, such as a large notice declaring the recipient a winner-- oftentimes a ``guaranteed'' winner or one of two final competitors for a large cash prize--and these gimmicks have proliferated to the point that American consumers are being duped into purchasing products they don't want or need because they think they have won or will win a big prize if they do so. Complaints about these mailings are one of the top ten consumer complaints in the nation. I have received numerous complaints from my constituents in Michigan asking that something be done to provide relief from these very misleading mailings. In early September 1998, we held a hearing in our Governmental Affairs Committee federal services subcommittee on the problem of deceptive sweepstakes and other mailings involving games of chance. We learned from three of our witnesses, the Florida Attorney General, the Michigan Assistant Attorney General and the Postal Inspection Service, that senior citizens are particular targets of these deceptive solicitations, because they are the most vulnerable. State Attorneys General have taken action against many of the companies that use deceptive mailings. The states have entered into agreements to stop the most egregious practices, but the agreements apply only to the states that enter into the agreements. This allows companies to continue their deceptive practices in other states. That's one reason why federal legislation in this area is needed. The bill I'm introducing today will help eliminate deceptive practices by prohibiting misleading statements, requiring more disclosure, imposing a $10,000 civil penalty for each deceptive mailing, and providing the Postal Service with additional tools to pursue deceptive and fraudulent offenders. Sweepstakes solicitations are put together by teams of clever marketers who package their sweepstakes offers in such a way so as to get people to purchase a product by implying that the chances of winning are enhanced if the product being offered is purchased. That is not allowed. You cannot require that a purchase be made in order to win a prize. But these deceptive practices are such and they are so finely honed that, no matter what the fine print says about no purchase being necessary, the recipient of the mailing often is led to believe, by the nature of the mailing, that a purchase indeed will enhance the opportunity to win the prize. Senator Collins addresses the sum of those issues in her bill. Rules and important disclaimers are written in fine print and hidden away in obscure sections of the solicitation or on the back of the envelope that is frequently tossed away. Even when one can find and read the rules, it frequently takes a law degree to understand them. The bill I am introducing will help to protect consumers from deceptive practices by directing the Postal Service to develop and issue regulations that restrict the use of misleading language and symbols in direct mail game of chance solicitations, including sweepstakes. The bill also requires additional disclosure about chances of winning and the statement that no purchase is necessary. Any mail that is designated by the Postal Service as being deceptive will not be delivered. This will significantly reduce the deceptive practices being used in the direct mail industry to dupe unsuspecting consumers into thinking they are grand prize winners. The direct mail industry also would benefit, in that the adverse publicity recently aimed at the industry because of ``You Have Won a Prize'' campaigns has maligned the industry as a whole. Cleaning up deceptive advertising could improve the industry's image. For those entities that continue to use deceptive mailings, my bill imposes a civil penalty of $10,000 for each piece of mail that violates Postal Service regulations. Currently the Postal Service can impose a fine for noncompliance with a Postal Service order. My bill imposes a fine whether or not the order actually has been issued. This has the effect of applying the penalty to the deceptive offense, not for noncompliance with the order. My bill also allows the Postal Service to quickly respond to changes in deceptive marketing practices by giving the Postal Service the authority to draft regulations that will be effective against the ``scheme du jour.'' A deceptive practice used today, may not be used tomorrow. As soon as the Post Office learns about one scheme, it changes. If legislation is passed that requires a specific notice, it can take just a short time before another deceptive practice pops up to by-pass the legislation. My bill gives the Postal Service the authority to evaluate what regulatory changes will be required to keep pace with the ever changing deceptive practices. This will help weed out deceptive practices in a timely manner. The bill also gives the Postal Service administrative subpoena power to respond more quickly to deceptive and fraudulent mail schemes. Currently the Postal Service must go through a lengthy administrative procedure before it can get evidence to shut down illegal operations. Currently the $10,000 fine--and civil penalty which exists--can only be imposed for noncompliance with a Postal Service order. There has to be an order issued which is violated before there can even be a civil fine. Our bill would impose a fine for violating the law, a penalty for perpetrating the deceptive offense or practice, and it would not require that there be an order previously entered. By the time the Postal Service gets through all the administrative hoops, the sweepstakes promoter may have folded up operations and disappeared, or has destroyed all the evidence. By granting the Postal Service limited subpoena authority to obtain relevant material records for an investigation, the Postal Service will be able to act more efficiently against illegal activities. Subpoena authority will make the Postal Service more effective and efficient in its pursuit of justice. The Deceptive Sweepstakes Mailings Elimination Act of 1999 takes a tough approach to dealing with sweepstakes solicitations and other games of chance offerings that are sent through the mail. If you use sweepstakes or a game of chance to promote the sale of a legitimate product, provide adequate disclosure, and abide with Postal Service regulations, then the Postal Service will deliver that solicitation. If deceptive practices are used in a sweepstakes or a game of chance solicitation, the Postal Service will be able to stop the solicitation and impose a significant penalty. So we are going to take a tough approach, both through Senator Collins' bill which I have cosponsored, through my bill which she has cosponsored, along with others, and this tough approach that is absolutely essential if we are going to protect seniors and others from the kind of deceptive practices which cost them so much money by encouraging them, through these practices, to buy items that they really do not want in order to win prizes that truly are unlikely or impossible to win.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the need for additional anti- addiction medications is a matter of great concern to me and an issue that I have been deeply involved with for a number of years. We must come up with new medications which block the craving of heroin. This is why I am very pleased to join with Senator Hatch and Senator Moynihan in introducing legislation that would establish the infrastructure to enable qualified physicians to prescribe schedule IV and V anti- addiction medications in their offices without an additional DEA registration if certain conditions are met. This will allow for a promising new drug, buprenorphine, to be used in the treatment of opiate addiction in physicians offices, under a separate registration from the Attorney General. Specific conditions would have to be met. These conditions include: Certification by participating physicians that they are licensed under state law and have the training and experience to treat heroin addicts; and that they have the capacity to refer patients to counseling and other ancillary services. Mr. President, there are a number of reasons why this legislation is necessary. The Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, requires separate DEA registrations for physicians who want to use approved narcotics in drug abuse treatment and separate approvals of registrants by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by state agencies. The result has been a treatment system consisting primarily of large methadone clinics located in big cities, and preventing physicians from treating patients in an office setting or in rural areas or small towns, thereby denying treatment to thousands in need of it. Additionally, experts say that many heroin addicts who want treatment are often deterred because of the stigma that is associated with such with such clinics. The intent of our legislation is to exclude medications like buprenorphine from burdensome regulatory requirements of the Narcotic Treatment Act, in order to carry drug abuse treatment beyond the methadone clinics and into physicians' offices. In so doing, the legislation includes protections against abuse. These protections include the following: Physicians may not treat more than 20 patients in an office setting unless the HHS Secretary adjusts this number; the HHS Secretary, as appropriate, may add to these conditions and allow the Attorney General to terminate a physician's DEA registration if these conditions are violated; and the program will continue after three years only if the HHS Secretary and Attorney General determine that this new type of decentralized treatment should continue based on a number of determinations. The National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with a pharmaceutical manufacturer, has helped to develop buprenorphine, which is expected to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the near future. The Congress, NIDA and the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) have long recognized the urgent need to develop new medications for drug addiction treatment. This is evident in the enactment of the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which established the Medications Development Division of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the enactment of legislation requiring HHS and IOM to cooperate in the development of anti-addiction medications. Recent data show that five out of six opiate addicts are currently not in treatment. This has contributed to a continuing public health crisis of significant proportions--the age of first heroin use is dropping; the number of heroin users is increasing; and the number of people becoming dependent on heroin is increasing. According to NIDA, the incidence of first-time use of herion in the 12-17 year old group has increased fourfold from the 1980s to 1995. These facts and sentiments were also expressed by experts in this field of critical importance to the Nation during a May 9, 1997 Drug Forum on Anti-addiction Research, which I convened along with Senator Moynihan and Senator Bob Kerrey. Forum participants, including distinguished experts such as Dr. Herbert Kleber and Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University, Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University and Dr. James Woods of the University of Michigan, made it crystal clear that time is of the essence--we must act expeditiously on new treatment discoveries. According to public health experts, the untreated population of opiate addicts (and other injection drug users) is the primary means for the spread of HIV, hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis into the general population, not to mention the families of such addicted persons. Failure to block the craving for drugs along with failure to provide traditional treatment will most certainly continue the spiral of huge health care costs--costs that will largely be borne not by the addicts, not by insurance companies--but by the American taxpayer. Buprenorphine, currently in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act, has a unique property--it has a ceiling effect, it is well tolerated by opiate addicted persons, and has a very low value for diversion on the street. Clinical trials conducted in 12 hospitals around the United States proved the new medication to be an extremely effective treatment medication. According to NIDA, of the 100,000 heroin addicts in France, between 40,000-50,000 addicts are being treated with buprenorphine without ill effects. Dr. Donald Wesson, Chairman of the American Society of Addiction Medicine {ASAM Medication Development Committee wrote: ``The availability of buprenorphine in physicians' offices adds a needed level of care and is one avenue to expand current opioid treatment capacity. ASAM strongly supports federal legislation to enable buprenorphine to be prescribed in physicians' offices for treatment of opioid dependence . . . We are very pleased to see that the bill makes provisions for physician training and qualification.'' Mr. President, finally, there are a number of questions that I raised with NIDA regarding buprenorphine prior to the introduction of this legislation which I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate. I would also like to share the informative memo on this subject which I received from The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). I ask unanimous consent that the October 5, 1998 reply from NIDA Director, Dr. Alan Leshner, and the October 8, 1998 memo from Dr. Donald R. Wesson of ASAM be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the need for additional anti- addiction medications is a matter of great concern to me and an issue that I have been deeply involved with for a number of years. We must come up with new medications which block the craving of heroin. This is why I am very pleased to join with Senator Hatch and Senator Moynihan in introducing legislation that would establish the infrastructure to enable qualified physicians to prescribe schedule IV and V anti- addiction medications in their offices without an additional DEA registration if certain conditions are met. This will allow for a promising new drug, buprenorphine, to be used in the treatment of opiate addiction in physicians offices, under a separate registration from the Attorney General. Specific conditions would have to be met. These conditions include: Certification by participating physicians that they are licensed under state law and have the training and experience to treat heroin addicts; and that they have the capacity to refer patients to counseling and other ancillary services. Mr. President, there are a number of reasons why this legislation is necessary. The Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, requires separate DEA registrations for physicians who want to use approved narcotics in drug abuse treatment and separate approvals of registrants by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by state agencies. The result has been a treatment system consisting primarily of large methadone clinics located in big cities, and preventing physicians from treating patients in an office setting or in rural areas or small towns, thereby denying treatment to thousands in need of it. Additionally, experts say that many heroin addicts who want treatment are often deterred because of the stigma that is associated with such with such clinics. The intent of our legislation is to exclude medications like buprenorphine from burdensome regulatory requirements of the Narcotic Treatment Act, in order to carry drug abuse treatment beyond the methadone clinics and into physicians' offices. In so doing, the legislation includes protections against abuse. These protections include the following: Physicians may not treat more than 20 patients in an office setting unless the HHS Secretary adjusts this number; the HHS Secretary, as appropriate, may add to these conditions and allow the Attorney General to terminate a physician's DEA registration if these conditions are violated; and the program will continue after three years only if the HHS Secretary and Attorney General determine that this new type of decentralized treatment should continue based on a number of determinations. The National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with a pharmaceutical manufacturer, has helped to develop buprenorphine, which is expected to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the near future. The Congress, NIDA and the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) have long recognized the urgent need to develop new medications for drug addiction treatment. This is evident in the enactment of the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which established the Medications Development Division of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the enactment of legislation requiring HHS and IOM to cooperate in the development of anti-addiction medications. Recent data show that five out of six opiate addicts are currently not in treatment. This has contributed to a continuing public health crisis of significant proportions--the age of first heroin use is dropping; the number of heroin users is increasing; and the number of people becoming dependent on heroin is increasing. According to NIDA, the incidence of first-time use of herion in the 12-17 year old group has increased fourfold from the 1980s to 1995. These facts and sentiments were also expressed by experts in this field of critical importance to the Nation during a May 9, 1997 Drug Forum on Anti-addiction Research, which I convened along with Senator Moynihan and Senator Bob Kerrey. Forum participants, including distinguished experts such as Dr. Herbert Kleber and Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University, Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University and Dr. James Woods of the University of Michigan, made it crystal clear that time is of the essence--we must act expeditiously on new treatment discoveries. According to public health experts, the untreated population of opiate addicts (and other injection drug users) is the primary means for the spread of HIV, hepatitis B and C, and tuberculosis into the general population, not to mention the families of such addicted persons. Failure to block the craving for drugs along with failure to provide traditional treatment will most certainly continue the spiral of huge health care costs--costs that will largely be borne not by the addicts, not by insurance companies--but by the American taxpayer. Buprenorphine, currently in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act, has a unique property--it has a ceiling effect, it is well tolerated by opiate addicted persons, and has a very low value for diversion on the street. Clinical trials conducted in 12 hospitals around the United States proved the new medication to be an extremely effective treatment medication. According to NIDA, of the 100,000 heroin addicts in France, between 40,000-50,000 addicts are being treated with buprenorphine without ill effects. Dr. Donald Wesson, Chairman of the American Society of Addiction Medicine {ASAM Medication Development Committee wrote: ``The availability of buprenorphine in physicians' offices adds a needed level of care and is one avenue to expand current opioid treatment capacity. ASAM strongly supports federal legislation to enable buprenorphine to be prescribed in physicians' offices for treatment of opioid dependence . . . We are very pleased to see that the bill makes provisions for physician training and qualification.'' Mr. President, finally, there are a number of questions that I raised with NIDA regarding buprenorphine prior to the introduction of this legislation which I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate. I would also like to share the informative memo on this subject which I received from The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). I ask unanimous consent that the October 5, 1998 reply from NIDA Director, Dr. Alan Leshner, and the October 8, 1998 memo from Dr. Donald R. Wesson of ASAM be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Objection.

Mr. LEVIN. I object to this, if he is unable to object, to make an objection in any other form.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable person from Saginaw, Michigan, Mrs. Bernice Barlow. Mrs. Barlow is leaving her position as president of the Saginaw branch of the NAACP after thirty years. As president of the Saginaw NAACP, Bernice Barlow has been a powerful advocate for equality and civil rights. Although her tireless efforts on behalf of the NAACP are admirable in their own right, Mrs. Barlow has not confined her community service to the NAACP. She has also served with distinction in leadership roles with organizations like the Saginaw Education Association, the Tri-County Fair Housing Association and the Saginaw County Mental Health Board. Despite her retirement from the presidency of the Saginaw NAACP, Bernice Barlow will continue her service to the people of Saginaw. Her husband, Charles, and her four children will surely be pleased to have more of her time, but I have no doubt that they will support her continuing efforts to ensure that equality and justice are recognized as the birthrights of every citizen. Mr. President, I am confident that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Bernice Barlow as she steps down from her position as president of the Saginaw NAACP, and in thanking her for her longstanding commitment to the people of the city of Saginaw.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain and Senator Robb, in introducing this legislation authorizing the Department of Defense to close excess, unneeded military bases. For the past two years, Secretary of Defense Cohen has asked the Congress to authorize two additional base closure rounds. But Congress has not acted. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have repeatedly said we need to close more military bases, and I am confident that they will once again ask us to close more bases when the President's budget is submitted next month. The legislation we are introducing today is intended to start the debate, and I anticipate the administration will make a similar legislative proposal to the Congress. This legislation calls for two additional base closure rounds, in 2001 and 2003, that would basically follow the same procedures that were used in 1991, 1993 and 1995, with two exceptions. First, the whole process would start and finish two months later in 2001 than it did in previous rounds, to give the new President sufficient time to nominate commissioners. Second, under our legislation privatization in place would not be permitted at closing installations unless the Base Closure Commission recommends it. In a November 1998 report, the General Accounting Office listed five key elements of the base closure process that ``contributed to the success of prior rounds''. Our legislation retains all of those key elements. GAO also stated that they ``have not identified any long-term readiness problems that were related to domestic base realignments and closures, that ``DOD continues to retain excess capacity'' and that ``substantial savings are expected'' from base closures. Mr. President, every expert and every study agrees on the basic facts--the Defense Department has more bases than its needs, and closing bases saves substantial money in the long run. The report the Department of Defense provided to the Congress last April clearly demonstrated these facts. As the Congressional Budget Office stated in a letter to me last July, ``the report's basic message is consistent with CBO's own conclusions: past and future BRAC round will lead to significant savings for DoD.'' Every year we delay another base closure round, we deny the Defense Department, and the taxpayers, about $1.5 billion in annual savings that we can never recoup. And every dollar we spend on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on things we do need. Mr. President, I am not going to make any detailed judgments on the President's defense budget proposal until we see the details, but I am prepared to support an increase in defense spending if the money is spent wisely. However, Congress should not use defense funding increases as an excuse to avoid tough choices. The addition of new resources cannot be a substitute for the billions of dollars of savings that would be generated by a new round of base closures. We cannot justify spending more for national defense unless we show our own willingness to make the best use of defense dollars by reducing unneeded defense infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding community leader in the City of Saginaw, Michigan, Dr. Nick Hall, Jr. Dr. Hall is being recognized at the 17th Annual ``O Give Thanks'' Banquet, hosted by The New Valley Mass Choir. Dr. Hall has served as Pastor of Bethesda Missionary Baptist Church since 1952, and has earned a reputation as one of Saginaw's most respected religious leaders. Throughout his 46 years of service at Bethesda Missionary Baptist Church, Dr. Hall has consistently demonstrated a deep devotion to the spiritual well being of his congregation and of the people of Saginaw. Dr. Hall's leadership has not been confined to his congregation. He served as a County Commissioner from 1992 to 1996, and has been a prominent member of civic organizations like Habitat for Humanity, the AIDS Committee of Saginaw, the Clergy Coalition Against Crack Cocaine, and the Saginaw Substance Abuse Advisory Board. Through his ministry and his community involvement, Dr. Hall has touched the lives of thousands of people. Mr. President, Dr. Nick Hall, Jr., has demonstrated a laudable commitment to making Saginaw a better place to live for all of its residents. It is truly fitting that he is being recognized for his achievements at this year's ``O Give Thanks'' Banquet. I know my colleagues will join me in commending Dr. Hall for his leadership and his dedication to the people of Saginaw, Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain and Senator Robb, in introducing this legislation authorizing the Department of Defense to close excess, unneeded military bases. For the past two years, Secretary of Defense Cohen has asked the Congress to authorize two additional base closure rounds. But Congress has not acted. Secretary Cohen and General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have repeatedly said we need to close more military bases, and I am confident that they will once again ask us to close more bases when the President's budget is submitted next month. The legislation we are introducing today is intended to start the debate, and I anticipate the administration will make a similar legislative proposal to the Congress. This legislation calls for two additional base closure rounds, in 2001 and 2003, that would basically follow the same procedures that were used in 1991, 1993 and 1995, with two exceptions. First, the whole process would start and finish two months later in 2001 than it did in previous rounds, to give the new President sufficient time to nominate commissioners. Second, under our legislation privatization in place would not be permitted at closing installations unless the Base Closure Commission recommends it. In a November 1998 report, the General Accounting Office listed five key elements of the base closure process that ``contributed to the success of prior rounds''. Our legislation retains all of those key elements. GAO also stated that they ``have not identified any long-term readiness problems that were related to domestic base realignments and closures, that ``DOD continues to retain excess capacity'' and that ``substantial savings are expected'' from base closures. Mr. President, every expert and every study agrees on the basic facts--the Defense Department has more bases than its needs, and closing bases saves substantial money in the long run. The report the Department of Defense provided to the Congress last April clearly demonstrated these facts. As the Congressional Budget Office stated in a letter to me last July, ``the report's basic message is consistent with CBO's own conclusions: past and future BRAC round will lead to significant savings for DoD.'' Every year we delay another base closure round, we deny the Defense Department, and the taxpayers, about $1.5 billion in annual savings that we can never recoup. And every dollar we spend on bases we do not need is a dollar we cannot spend on things we do need. Mr. President, I am not going to make any detailed judgments on the President's defense budget proposal until we see the details, but I am prepared to support an increase in defense spending if the money is spent wisely. However, Congress should not use defense funding increases as an excuse to avoid tough choices. The addition of new resources cannot be a substitute for the billions of dollars of savings that would be generated by a new round of base closures. We cannot justify spending more for national defense unless we show our own willingness to make the best use of defense dollars by reducing unneeded defense infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cleland, Senator Robb, and a number of my colleagues today in introducing The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs have told us that the single greatest challenge they face right now is recruiting and retaining the people we need to man our military services. This legislation will go a long way to ensuring that we continue to attract and retain the high quality people that make up our military services today. Just last month, the men and women of our Armed Forces demonstrated once again that they are by far the best trained, best equipped, best disciplined and most highly skilled and motivated military force in the world. Operation Desert Fox was a large-scale military operation that was carried out flawlessly. It involved 40,000 troops from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 ships performed strike and support roles. Over 600 aircraft sorties were flown in 4 days, and 300 of these were night strike operations. General Zinni, the commander in charge of Operation Desert Fox, pointed out that even in peacetime an exercise of this scale is very dangerous and stressful. To have achieved all of the objectives of Operation Desert Fox without a single United States or British casualty and without any degradation of our ongoing efforts in Bosnia, Korea, and other critical areas around the world was truly remarkable. Mr. President, the key to the success of Operation Desert Fox--and the key to the strength and capability of our Armed Forces--is the men and women who serve in uniform. We must do everything we can to ensure that we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve in our Armed Forces. Over the past year, there have been growing indications that the military services were beginning to have problems in both recruiting and retention, particularly retaining highly skilled mid-grade officers and enlisted whose skills are in demand in the private sector. To address these problems, last month Secretary Cohen and General Shelton announced a package of improvements in military pay and retirement benefits that will be part of President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 budget. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee on January 5 of this year, General Shelton and all of thee Joint Chiefs said that enactment of this package of pay and benefits was their highest priority. Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today includes all three parts of the Defense Department's pay and retirement package, as well as some of the key recommendations from the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance. First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise for all military members of 4.8 percent, effective January 1, 2000. This is slightly higher than the 4.4 percent recommended by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, but it carries out their stated objective of increasing military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). This 4.8 percent increase will be the largest increase in military pay since 1982. In addition, our legislation calls for annual increases in military pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the ECI in each year of the Future Years Defense Plan. Again, this reflects DOD's current plan, and is designed to bring military pay more in line with private sector wages as measured by the ECI. The second part of DOD's plan included in our legislation is a targeted pay raise that would be effective July 1, 2000. Taken in conjunction with the January 1 4.8-percent across-the-board pay increase, this targeted pay raise increases the pay of mid-grade officers and enlisted personnel, and also for key promotions points, between 4.8 and 10.3 percent. The third part of the DOD plan included in this legislation is a revision to the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986. This portion of the legislation would restore the 50-percent basic pay benefit for military members who retire at 20 years of service. In addition to the package of pay and retirement benefits proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, the legislation we are introducing today includes several key recommendations from the recent report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance specifically designed to help the military services recruiting and retention efforts. The most important of these recommendations is a series of improvements to the Montgomery GI Bill. Education benefits are a very important attraction for young people entering the armed forces. Our legislation would increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to contribute $1,200 of their own money to participate in the program. Both of these changes were recommended by the Congressional Commission of Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance to increase the attractiveness of the GI Bill to potential new recruits. The Commission also recommended, and our legislation includes, a provision to allow service members to transfer their earned GI bill benefits to one or more immediate family members. It is my view, Mr. President, that this will prove to be a very powerful recruiting and retention incentive. This legislation also includes a provision that would allow military members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal civil servants. Under our proposal, which follows the recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan. Finally, this legislation includes a very important provision that extends for 3 years--through December 31, 2002--the authority for the military services to pay a number of bonuses and special and incentive pays that are critical to recruiting and retaining highly skilled military members. Under current law, the authority to pay these bonuses and special pays runs out at the end of this year. Renewing this authority now through the end of 2002 will reassure military personnel managers--and military members themselves--that these crucial authorities will continue to be available to them. Mr. President, detailed costing of this legislation will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office over the next several weeks. In my view, however, the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us to increase the funding for national defense above the levels I understand will be proposed in President Clinton's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. We should be able to accommodate any increase in funding necessary for these initiatives from lower priority programs. I believe this package of pay and benefits is fair and will ensure that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in our armed forces. All of us are committed to the well-being of our military members and their families. There may be some aspects of this legislation that require improvement or modification, and that can be done as the Armed Services Committee begins to review this bill and any other bills that are introduced to address the concerns we all have in this area. In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of the author of this legislation, Senator Max Cleland. Fortunately for the Senate and for the men and women of our armed forces, he will continue to serve as the Ranking Democratic member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee during the 106th Congress. Senator Robb of our Committee has also played an important role in drafting this legislation. Both Senator Cleland and Senator Robb have a tremendous commitment to the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Cleland, Senator Robb, and all of the cosponsors of this legislation and with all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months ahead to secure enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on October 8th I made a statement on the Senate floor regarding the independent counsel law and Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton. I want to take the opportunity today to clarify one aspect of that statement to ensure that my words and their import are accurate. I stated on October 8th that the so-called Starr Report failed to mention Ms. Lewinsky's testimony ``that when she asked President Clinton whether she should get rid of his gifts to her in light of the Jones subpoena, his response was `I don't know' '' and her testimony that the President said he didn't want to see Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit when she offered to show it to him. The reference in my statement should have been to Mr. Starr's analysis of the evidence which is the key part of his report instead of the overall report. Mr. Starr did make reference to such testimony in the part of the report where he summarized the evidence. My criticism of Mr. Starr's report is that he left such exculpatory evidence out of or dismissed it in the key part of his report which analyzes the evidence and explains why he believes the evidence ``may constitute grounds for impeachment.'' Otherwise it was the imbalanced analysis of the evidence where Mr. Starr failed to address the significance or relevance of exculpatory facts such as these which is so disturbing.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the last few years, I have been working on an issue of great importance to my constituents in Flint, Michigan. The city of Flint is home to an outstanding medical facility, Hurley Medical Center. A subsidiary of Hurley Medical Center owns a nursing home, Heartland Manor, also located in Flint. Heartland Manor has applied to HCFA for Medicare certification which it has been attempting to do since 1994. However, Heartland Manor has been thwarted in this process at every turn by HCFA. I would like to lay out the facts of this situation for the record. On July 27, 1989, Chateau Gardens, a nursing home facility, was terminated from the Medicare program. On January 1, 1994, West Flint Village Long Term Care Inc., a subsidiary of Hurley Foundation, purchased Chateau Gardens. The new owner, Hurley Medical Center, is a non profit public hospital with an excellent reputation. State officials requested that Hurley Medical Center take over Heartland Manor. In taking over the facility, the entire staff and management of the nursing home was changed. In 1994 Heartland Manor applied for certification into the Medicare program as a new, prospective, provider. Heartland Manor had never before entered into a Medicare participation agreement and had never been issued a provider number. However, HCFA chose to consider Heartland as a re-entry provider and Heartland was subsequently denied participation into the Medicare program based in large part on violations which HCFA carried over from the previous owner. If Heartland Manor had been treated as a new provider, it would have been approved and would presently be in the Medicare program. The complaints that have been cited against Heartland Manor itself are typical of complaints which are lodged against many established and reputable nursing homes. In fact, the citations which Heartland Manor has received have consistently been either deleted or reduced in their determination of scope and severity. I recently reviewed eight complaints that were levied against Heartland Manor in August. None of the complaints represented a determination of a deficient facility practice. Hurley Medical Center is planning to build a new complex that will bring state of the art care to an underserved area. The only barrier to this undertaking is Heartland's lack of Medicare certification. Once Heartland Manor receives Medicare certification, Hurley plans to put $10 million into renovating Heartland Manor. I believe that Heartland Manor deserves to be treated as a new provider as was determined by Administrative Law Judge Stephen Ahlgren's February 26, 1998 ruling. It is illogical and unconscionable that HCFA is refusing to treat Heartland Manor as a new provider. Mr. President, I had hoped that we could have resolved this issue in the appropriations process. It was my intent to offer an amendment to the Labor Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill that would have required that HCFA consider Heartland Manor to be a new provider for Medicare certification purposes. That bill never showed up on the floor but instead was wrapped into an omnibus nonamendable conference report. I believe that it is fair and just for the community of Flint that Heartland Manor be treated as a new provider. Providing Heartland Manor with the ability to apply as a new provider will allow the nursing home to receive a fair shot at Medicare certification which is all I am asking for.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this legislation that authorizes and requests the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Theodore Roosevelt for his actions in the attack on San Juan Heights, Cuba during the Spanish American War. I support this legislation because the letter to the President that Senator Thurmond has put in the Record makes clear the congressional intent in passing this legislation. I want to briefly summarize the key points of this letter. It is our intent and understanding that: prior to reaching a decision on awarding the Medal of Honor posthumously to Theodore Roosevelt pursuant to this legislation, the President will seek the advice of the Secretary of the Army; Theodore Roosevelt will be considered for eligibility for the Medal of Honor based on the same standard of merit that was applied to other members of the armed forces who received this medal during the Spanish American War; and the Secretary of the Army will prepare a full and formal record of Theodore Roosevelt's valor, inviting public submissions, with emphasis on the eyewitness and contemporaneous accounts of Roosevelt's battlefield courage. Mr. President, military awards and decorations--particularly decorations for valor--are a hallowed part of the military services' core values and traditions, and are critical to the morale and esprit of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. In my view, the decision to award a medal of valor is the prerogative of the military service, not the Congress. That is why Congress recently enacted section 1130 of Title 10 United States Code. This section allows Members of Congress to request a Service Secretary to review proposals for military decorations that were not previously submitted in a timely fashion, but leaves the final determination as to the merits of approving the decoration to the Service Secretary. There are many people who believe that Theodore Roosevelt's actions in the attack on San Juan Heights are deserving of this high honor, and that this honor was withheld from him at the time despite the recommendation of his military chain of command. I believe that a complete record should be assembled and the entire issue should be carefully reviewed by the Army. Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera recently pledged to Congress that the Army is conducting this review, and he has agreed to review personally all of the material in this case. Mr. President, if an injustice was done to Theodore Roosevelt in withholding the Medal of Honor, it should be corrected. But the legislation we are passing today is advisory and not directive. Before the President reaches a final decision on whether to award the Medal of Honor to Theodore Roosevelt, our letter to the President makes clear the congressional intent that he should consult with the Secretary of the Army.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Yogi Berra, explaining the difficulty of playing in the afternoon sun and shadows of Yankee Stadium's notorious left field is reported to have commented, ``It gets late early.'' We have before the Senate a huge Omnibus Appropriations and Emergency Supplemental bill which spends more than $486 billion and legislates across a broad range of issues of great importance. We are faced now with this massive, sweeping legislation because the 105th Congress did not do its work. In the 105th Congress, it got late early. From the very outset of this Congress, the majority leadership set a slow pace and avoided fully addressing the major issues before the Nation. The 105th Congress failed to reform our campaign finance laws, failed even to debate a patient's bill of rights, failed to act on legislation to reduce tobacco use by our young people, failed to even to take up serious regulatory reform, and failed to address the problems looming in the future of Social Security. In fact, this Congress, failed, this year to even meet its responsibility, under law, to pass a budget, the first time this has occurred. And, it failed to complete work on 8 of the 13 appropriations bills required to run the government. Two appropriations bills were never even debated by the Senate and a third was never passed. On top of that dozens of legislative proposals were added to this bill which were never debated and considered in the Senate. The failure to pass the appropriations bills, as required, prior to end of the fiscal year on October 1, led directly to the process that confronts us with this monster Omnibus Appropriations bill today, a four thousand plus page bill which we were unable to even begin reading until yesterday. The Founders of our Nation envisioned a careful contemplative legislative process which divided power and sought to assure that the people would be well represented. The process which we have recently witnessed was hardly that. It was a closed process, which greatly excluded Democrats in the House and Senate, enhancing the powers of the Republican leaders of the House and Senate and in an extra- Constitutional fashion bringing the President into a legislative role. Where the Congress was more fully represented, its representation was limited to the members and leaders of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. This, despite the fact that legislation was included affecting the jurisdictions of many, if not all, of the authorizing committees. And then, the entire package was lumped together and dumped here on the Senate floor on a take it or leave it basis. Senators have no opportunity to attempt to amend this product, merely to vote yes or no. Never before in my memory have we been confronted with appropriations bills and legislative provisions on so massive a scale which have never even been considered in either the House or Senate. The President, and Democrats in the Congress have won some important victories in this bill. However, even as we acknowledge and applaud those victories, we must be mindful of the precedents which we set when we accept this terrible process. Congress should not abdicate its responsibilities. That is why I joined with Senators Byrd and Moynihan in fighting the line-item veto in the courts, a battle which was successful and that is why I am distressed by the process which creates the bill on the floor today, an ad-hoc process at best and a process which effectively disenfranchises many Americans by short-changing their representation, at worst. And that is why, although this legislation contains many provisions of which I approve, and although I applaud the work of the Administration and Democrats in Congress in winning important provisions in this bill, I do not support this wretched process and cannot in good conscience vote for this bill. Among the most important positive aspects of this legislation is that the bill provides additional funding for education. The President and Democrats in the Congress put forward an education package early this year. This bill finally acts on key elements of that package, providing a $1.2 billion downpayment on reducing class size by hiring new teachers across the country. In addition, the bill includes $698 million for education technology, the $260 million that the President requested for child literacy, $871 million for summer jobs, a $301 million increase for title I, $491 million for Goals 2000, and a $313 million increase for Head Start. Unfortunately, the bill excludes the President's school modernization initiative which would have leveraged nearly $22 billion in bonds to build and renovate schools. Hopefully, we can revisit this issue in the next Congress. The bill includes $15.6 billion for National Institutes of Health, $2 billion more than FY'98 and $859 million more than the Administration request, $700 million for Maternal and Child Health Block grant, $9.4 million more than FY98, $105 million for Healthy Start to reduce infant mortality rates, $9.5 million more than FY98, $160 million for breast and cervical cancer screening, $16.2 million over FY98, and $2.5 billion for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, $341 million above FY98. Also, I am pleased that the bill contains language which is a first step toward restructuring the home health care payment system. I have been concerned about this problem for some time now. I was an original co-sponsor of Senator Collins' Medicare Health Equity Act of 1998 I believe the provision in the Omnibus bill will create a payment system which is somewhat more equitable than the current system. Under our current system, health care providers in Michigan have too often been penalized for prudent efficient use of Medicare resources, and that is wrong. In addition to the nearly six billion dollars in the bill for emergency assistance to farmers who have been hurt by low prices, drought and natural disasters, it contains important money for Michigan agriculture for research on subjects from fireblight to wood utilization. There is a provision to make apple growers in West Michigan, who suffered fireblight-related tree loss in disastrous storms, eligible for the Tree Assistance Program. The bill provides the President's request for an enhanced food safety incentive, plus an increase in the National Research Initiative of $7.4 million for nutrition, food quality and health. Some of these additional funds could and should be used by the Secretary to help develop safer substitutes for pesticides that might be discontinued in implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. Also, the agreement includes $300,000 for a study of the WIC food package nutritional guidelines finally looking at the benefits of including dried fruit in WIC cereals. I am pleased that the bill continues a moratorium on the use of funds to increase the CAFE standard for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Given the low-price of gasoline and the continued high consumer demand for larger, safer vehicles, which are made most efficiently by U.S. manufacturers, increasing CAFE would only harm the U.S. economy and deprive consumers. I am disappointed funding for the National Contaminated Sediments Task Force which I requested was not included in the bill. I am concerned that this will mean that the existing uncoordinated Federal approach will continue to fail in adequately cleaning up contaminated sediments and preventing further contamination. There will be an additional $400,000 above the President's request split between operations and acquisition at Keweenaw National Historical Park. The bill includes $800,000 for land acquisition at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, and $2.25 million for the final phase for acquisition of lands from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust as part of the Consumers Energy Ludington settlement. This agreement provides the budget request for the International Joint Commission so that negotiations with the Canadians can begin in earnest to prevent the export of Great Lakes water. The bill includes $6.825 million for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor. Funds ($50,000) for a study of the erosion problems in Grand Marais Harbor are also included. Unfortunately, the bill does not include the Senate's increase of $1 million above the budget request for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to combat the sea lamprey in St. Mary's River. Overall, the bill provides the highest level of funding for the Federal Highway Administration in history, at $25.5 billion. That is relatively good news, though, unfortunately, the negotiators have included over $300 million in new highway money to be handed to four different states in an apparent effort to bypass the allocation formulas in TEA-21 that were the subject of much debate earlier this year. The bill does contain $10 million for new buses and bus facilities across facilities, and $600,000 for the Capital Area Transit Authority in Lansing. And, $200,000 for a study of the viability of commuter rail in Southeastern Michigan. As a cosponsor of legislation to delay implementation of Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Reform bill, which was scheduled to go into effect on September 30, 1998, requiring individuals entering the U.S. at the Canadian border to complete a visa card at the point of entry and register at the time of exit, I am pleased to note that this bill contains language delaying the provision for 30 months. However, it should be repealed, not just delayed. I am pleased that the bill does not include the House version of the Auto Salvage Title bill since the House dropped the Levin amendment which I successfully attached to the Senate bill. The House version would have preempted state laws that provide tougher consumer protection. I am also pleased that while the bill provides funding to replenish the IMF, it will push recipient countries to liberalize trade restrictions. Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the national security provisions of the omnibus bill. First, I am pleased that this legislation includes the funding the President requested for United States participation in the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia. If Congress had not provided this emergency funding, there would have been disastrous consequences for the readiness and the morale of our forces serving in, and in support of, Bosnia. We all regret that the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Accords has not gone as fast as we hoped it would, but Congress has done the right thing by providing the necessary funding to ensure the readiness of our forces. This legislation provides a needed $1 billion in additional readiness funding that the President requested earlier this month for equipment maintenance, spare parts, and recruiting assistance. This omnibus bill also contains the funds requested by the President for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, also known as KEDO. This funding is crucial to continuing the Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea. That agreement is our best hope for denuclearizing North Korea and has provided tangible security benefits to our nation. Previous legislation would have effectively prevented the funding of KEDO, and thus given North Korea an excuse for walking away from the Agreed Framework. That could have led North Korea to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, which would cast the Korean Peninsula into an unnecessary and dangerous crisis. This outcome is the right one. There are many positive aspects of this legislation for our national security, but I am disappointed that so much of the ``emergency'' funding in this bill for national security programs is not for readiness and not for emergencies, but for things the Defense Department and the administration never asked for, in particular the addition of $1 billion for ballistic missile defense. Of course, that $1 billion for ballistic missile defense cannot be spent unless the President submits an emergency request for these funds. I fully expect the Administration will exercise good judgement in deciding whether or not to request these funds as an emergency. Not only is the money added to this bill for missile defense and intelligence programs going to fund programs that the administration did not request funding for on an emergency basis, again, these are programs for which the administration did not request funding at all. Furthermore, with regard to missile defense, adding this funding is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials of the Department of Defense who told the Armed Services Committee that while there was one instance in which additional funds could accelerate a program, the Navy Upper Tier program, in general the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is proceeding as fast as it can with all our missile defense programs and their development is constrained by technology, not funding availability. In recent testimony to the Armed Services Committee, senior defense and military leaders told us that the National Missile Defense (NMD) program is going as fast as it can, and that adding more money will not make it go faster. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre told the Committee: ``As a practical matter, we are moving as fast as we can to develop the elements of an NMD system. Even with more money, we couldn't go any faster.'' He later emphasized that ``this is as close as we can get in the Department of Defense to a Manhattan Project. We are pushing this very fast.'' During that same hearing, General Joseph Ralston, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Committee that the NMD program enjoys a unique and privileged status within the Defense Department. He said: ``I know of no other program in the Department of Defense that has had as many constraints removed in terms of oversight and reviews just so we can deploy it and develop it as quickly as possible.'' On October 6th, Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the Armed Services Committee that the NMD program is being developed as fast as possible and additional money will not speed it up: ``I have talked to the head of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and he has assured me that no amount of money will accelerate that timetable . . .'' He went on to say that ``I cannot accelerate it no matter what we do.'' So, it is clear that the Defense Department is proceeding as fast as possible to develop a National Missile Defense system, and that more money will not make this go any faster. Furthermore, the Defense Department has told us that only one program could be accelerated with more money. I would note that Congress added $120 million to the Navy Upper Tier program this year to accelerate it, cut funds from other theater missile defense programs and made no attempt in the regular legislative process to add any money for National Missile Defense. So this unrequested missile defense money cannot speed up most of the programs that are now being developed. It is not clear what it would be for, but it is clear that the Defense Department never asked for it. A few weeks ago, the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were criticized by some of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee during our hearings with them for not speaking up soon enough or forcefully enough about concerns they had with aspects of our defense program. Mr. President, it seems a little inconsistent to me for the Congress to criticize the Pentagon for not speaking up and then after they express themselves very clearly on the status of the missile defense program, we ignore their testimony and do the opposite of what they say. I am also disappointed that this legislation perpetuates the practice of not fully funding our obligations to the United Nations. It is in the national security interest of the United States to have an effective United Nations and strong U.S. leadership within the United Nations. It is especially regrettable that this legislation moves us in the opposite direction in order to score political points on the abortion issue. Mr. President, the bill that we are voting on today includes S. 2176, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, with several amendments. This legislation clarifies and updates the current Vacancies Act, an 1868 law meant to encourage the Administration to make timely nominations to fill positions in the Executive Branch requiring the Senate's advice and consent. First, the Vacancies Act provisions in this bill make it explicit that the Vacancies Act is the sole exclusive statutory authority for filling advice and consent positions on a temporary basis. It can no longer be argued that other general statutory authorities creating or organizing agencies supersede the Vacancies Act and authorize temporary officials, who have not been confirmed by the Senate, to serve indefinitely. Second, the legislation updates the Vacancies Act in several significant respects to more accurately reflect the realities of today's nominations process. The clearance process for nominees requiring Senate confirmation has become much more complex than it was just a decade ago. Moreover, increasingly adversarial confirmation proceedings have required that background investigations and other steps in the vetting process be more thorough and lengthy. In recognition of this development, the legislation increases the time period that an individual can serve in an acting position from 120 days under current law to 210 days from the date of the vacancy. If a nomination is sent to the Senate during that 210 day period, an individual may serve in an acting capacity until the Senate has completed action on the nomination. Moreover, the legislation gives a new Administration an additional time period of 90 days to submit its nominations in the first year. The legislation allows first assistants, other Senate-confirmed officials, and other qualified high-level agency employees to serve as acting officials. Finally, the legislation creates an action-enforcing mechanism to encourage our presidents to promptly submit nominations. Specifically, the legislation provides that if no nomination to fill a vacant position is submitted within the 210 day period, the position remains vacant and any duties assigned exclusively to the position by statute can be performed only by the agency head. As soon as a nomination is submitted, however, the legislation provides that an acting official can assume the job until the Senate acts on the nomination. The legislation also includes an amendment I authored to address the problem of lengthy recesses or adjournments. The bill allows a person to serve in an acting capacity in a vacant position once a nomination is submitted, regardless of whether the nomination is submitted within or after the 210 day time period. This is a clarification the legislation makes to current law. However, there was no provision to allow a person to serve in an acting capacity after the 210 day time period if the nomination is made during a recess or adjournment of the Senate. My amendment, incorporated into the enacted legislation as section 3349d, provides that during such long recesses, the President's submission of a written notification that he or she intends to nominate a designated person promptly when the Senate reconvenes triggers the provision of the bill that allows a person to act in the position temporarily until the Senate acts on the nomination. This allows the President to fill a vacant position with an acting person during a long recess of the Senate provided the President has identified the person whose nomination will be submitted when the Senate returns. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond for their leadership and sponsorship of legislation to amend the Vacancies Act. They identified a serious problem in the failure of Administrations past and present to comply with their responsibilities under the existing law to promptly nominate persons to fill advice and consent positions. They worked diligently to resolve the various conflicts over this legislation, and I am pleased we were able to bring this legislation to a responsible and timely conclusion. As we adopt these reforms to the Vacancies Act, we should not forget that as Senators we have a corresponding duty to act promptly and responsibly on nominations once they are submitted by the Administration. We as the Senate rightfully want to protect our Constitutional prerogative to provide advice and consent on nominations. However, we must by the same token discharge these duties in a conscientious and timely manner. Mr. President, I also want to mention one piece of legislation which the Congress failed to address this year and which was not folded into this Omnibus Appropriations bill in the final hours of this Congress. I am very disappointed that we were not able to enact legislation to improve the regulatory process this year. Senator Thompson and I sponsored S. 981, the Regulatory Improvement Act. We had two hearings on the bill and marked it up in the Governmental Affairs Committee back in March of this year. It was reported to the full Senate for consideration in May. The Administration signaled its support for the bill with certain agreed-to changes in July. And, we've been urging that the Majority Leader bring the bill to the floor since that time. The bill now has 17 Republican and 8 Democratic cosponsors. S. 981 is a reasonable approach to improving the regulatory process by requiring cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment for our most significant regulations. It would bring meaningful reform to the way the federal government adopts its regulations, and it would make the rulemaking process far more open and interactive. We lost a great opportunity this year and invested a lot of hard work and effort. further research on fiber polymer additives in asphalt and concrete in connection with the transportation appropriations act

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak of the untimely death of former Michigan State Representative Perry Bullard. Perry Bullard had a sharp mind, and a tongue to match. He has been called outspoken and abrasive. But what he really was was a passionate legislator. He had a fundamental belief in democracy, and the protection of individual liberties. He served in the Michigan House of Representatives for 20 years, rising to the position of Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. His commitment to the rights of individuals in a democracy and the rights of individuals to access their government are evidenced by the bills he sponsored which have become law. He wrote the Michigan Open Meeting Act, the state Freedom of Information Act, the Whistleblower Protections Act and the Polygraph Protections Act. He was behind the passage of the state's Statutory Will Act, which created a fill-in-the-blank will form that allows people to write their own wills. Equally important to the bills he passed were the bills he stopped. He prevented passage of legislation to loosen requirements for police wiretaps, and to allow for police entering homes without a warrant. Perry Bullard was a liberal, and unabashedly so. He believed that being liberal meant protecting liberty. For him protecting liberty meant putting the interests of the public ahead of those of the state. He will be missed and our hearts go out to his wife, Kelly. Mr. President I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a passionate legislator, Perry Bullard.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, a powerful voice for fairness and compassion fell silent with the untimely death of State Representative Morris Hood, Jr. Representative Hood served in the Michigan House of Representatives for 28 years, representing a part of the City of Detroit, my home town. He was the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He distinguished himself in that role by fighting to make education accessible to all people. He strove to give everyone the opportunity to go to school, to obtain a job and earn a living. He was the primary founder of the King-Chavez-Parks initiative, which has provided thousands of dollars in scholarship money to deserving minority students. He was a believer in a positive role for government in our society. He once said, ``There are some things government is meant to do. One of the them is to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.'' Morris Hood, Jr. recognized the painful effects of discrimination and sponsored legislation to give small and minority owned businesses the ability to compete for state contracts. Foremost of all, Morris Hood was a promoter of the City of Detroit. He saw in Detroit a community full of possibilities, inhabited by people full of potential. He saw as his responsibility to use government as one means to unlock that potential. That is why he was such a strong supporter of Focus: HOPE, an organization that is near and dear to my heart. His voice will be dearly missed. Our hearts go out to his children, Denise and Morris III. Mr. President I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a passionate legislator, State Representative Morris Hood, Jr.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have serious objections to a provision in the Coast Guard authorization bill that was inserted in the House bill in a managers amendment with no hearings or vote in the Senate. This provision grants a waiver of existing law for a single vessel operating on the Great Lakes and elsewhere against the wishes of both Michigan Senators and other Senators and in circumvention of a Customs Service ruling regarding the type of dredge work this vessel is allowed to perform. This waiver is a discriminatory provision which gives special treatment and a competitive advantage to one vessel at the expense of its competitors. Mr. President, the granting of this waiver will be detrimental to other dredgers on the Great Lakes and elsewhere who are abiding by U.S. law and U.S. Customs Service interpretations of the Jones Act. The hopper dredge vessel Columbus, the vessel seeking the waiver, was challenged by a competitor for violating the Jones Act because it was performing dredging work that was not allowed under that Act. That challenge was upheld by the U.S. Customs Service. However, instead of abiding by or appealing the Customs Service ruling, a legislative waiver was sought to circumvent that ruling. The waiver was granted by the House, but not the Senate because the Senate passed Coast Guard authorization bill did not contain this discriminatory provision. I want to make clear that the only reason this waiver will be included in the final Coast Guard authorization bill is due to the circumstances under which this bill is being considered. Under normal circumstances, I believe the Senate would have removed this provision from the final bill. Next year I will introduce legislation to repeal the Jones Act waiver that is contained in the Coast Guard authorization bill, H.R. 2204, for the vessel Columbus. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that you and Senator Snowe will work with me to repeal this waiver as early as possible next year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the legislation I introduced along with Senator McCain, the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998, S. 1364, was passed by the House earlier this week and is being considered by the Senate under unanimous consent today. The law eliminates 132 outdated reporting requirements imposed on federal agencies by Congress through statute. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight circulated a list of reports that was initially provided by the President in his 1997 budget to all committees having cognizance over the reports recommended for elimination. The committees reviewed the list of reports and identified those reports they deemed essential. The initial list contained over 400 reports; the bill that passed the Senate contained over 200 reports, and the bill as passed by the House contains 132 reports for elimination. The reports that were in the initial proposal that are not included in the bill as passed by the House have been reviewed by both houses of Congress and considered necessary and useful to the Congress in its oversight responsibilities. Reports elimination is not a new area of interest in Congress. This is the third piece of legislation we have passed in the last 15 years to eliminate or modify wasteful reporting requirements. Just three years ago, in 1995, Senator McCain and I introduced and got enacted Public Law 104-66, the ``Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995,'' which eliminated or modified 207 reports. Section 3003 of Public Law 104-66, contains a provision for the termination of all annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic reporting requirements, subject to some exceptions, 4 years after the date of enactment. The bill was enacted into law on December 21, 1995, which means that effective December 21, 1999, reports listed in the House No. 103-7, that are not exempt from termination, will be automatically eliminated on December 21st of next year. Committees and Members should be on notice that if there are reporting requirements now in law that they want to continue that are annual, semiannual or periodic, those reporting requirements will have to be reenacted before the 1999 deadline. It will require an affirmative act of legislation to continue those reporting requirements. While it is important to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary reports, it is equally important to continue those reporting requirements that we think are essential to the work of the Congress. I urge my colleagues to be alert to this upcoming deadline. Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain for his excellent work in helping to get today's legislation passed. I also want to thank Myla Edwards of my office who handled this bill for us as a legislative fellow. Ensuring that this bill covers the intended reporting requirements is tedious work, and Myla demonstrated the care, patience, and commitment necessary to get a bill like this passed. amendment no. 3836

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the 105th Congress is nearing its conclusion. As we look over the past two years of this Congress, one issue that consumed hours of effort and debate, exposed problems that strike at the heart of our government, and whose ramifications are nothing less than a cancer eating at the body politic, remains unresolved. I'm talking about campaign finance reform. In January 1997, this Congress launched multiple investigations into events associated with the 1996 federal elections. Dozens of hearings were held, and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee issued a 9,575 page report. Bipartisan legislation addressing the major issues was introduced and debated on the floor of the Senate and the House. Majorities on both sides of the Capitol voted in support of reform, to strengthen federal election laws. In the Senate, a majority supported the McCain-Feingold bill. In the House, a majority voted for the Shays- Meehan bill. Both bills sought to ban soft money, treat phony issue ads as campaign ads they are, strengthen disclosure, and streamline enforcement. Despite majority support in both Houses, we are ending this Congress without major campaign finance reform. It is a tragedy. Given the controversy and criticisms following the 1996 elections, the failure to enact meaningful campaign finance reform is unjustifiable, it is inexplicable, and it is wrong. As many of us have said repeatedly, the problem with the 1996 elections is that the vast majority of the conduct most loudly condemned was not illegal--it was legal. Most involved soft money--the solicitation and spending of undisclosed and unlimited election-related contributions, despite laws now on the books requiring federal campaign contributions to comply with strict limits and be disclosed. Virtually all the foreign contributions so loudly condemned involved soft money. Virtually every offer of access to the White House or the Capitol Building or to the President or the leadership of the Senate or the House involved contributions of soft money. Opponents of campaign finance reform contend that soft money is not a problem and that the laws on the books do not need reform, but the truth is that legal limits which once had meaning have been virtually swallowed up by the loopholes. The limits on individual, corporate and individual contributions have become a sham. Campaign contribution limits, for all intents and purposes, do not exist. The law now states, for example, that no one may contribute more than $1,000 per election to a candidate; no one may contribute more than $20,000 per year to a political party; and corporations and unions may not make federal campaign contributions at all except through a PAC. But the soft money loophole makes these limits meaningless. For example, under the current system, a corporation, union or individual can give $1 million to a candidate's party and have that party televise so-called issue ads in that candidate's district during the election, using an ad that is indistinguishable from candidate ads which have to be paid for with regulated funds. That's exactly what is happening. In the 1998 elections, for example, the Republican National Congressional Committee is conducting a $37 million advertising effort dubbed ``Operation Breakout'' in which the party runs television ads in areas where there are close Congressional races, claiming that the ads discuss issues and are not efforts to elect or defeat the candidates they mention by name. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $7 million on similar issue ads. These multi-million dollar advertising efforts by both parties demonstrate how the loopholes have effectively erased the campaign limits. Other, more fundamental problems with current law are illustrated by a recent court decision, issued October 9th in the Charlie Trie prosecution, holding that the law as currently worded does not prohibit soft money contributions by foreign nationals. The plain truth is that the federal election laws now on the books are too often unenforceable. While the Republican leadership rails at the Attorney General for not doing more and threatens her with impeachment for not appointing an independent counsel to investigate the 1996 federal elections, they simultaneously block efforts to clarify and strengthen the very laws that they say they want her to enforce. The soft money loophole exists, because we in Congress allow it to exist. Foreign involvement in American election campaigns exists, because we in Congress allow it to exist. Phony issue ads exist, because we in Congress allow them to exist. Weak enforcement of campaign laws continues, because we in Congress allow the current loophole-ridden statutes to continue on the books unchanged. It is long past time to stop pointing fingers at others and take responsibility for our share of the blame for this system. We alone write the laws. Congress alone can close the loopholes and reinvigorate the Federal election laws. We could have made significant progress during this Congress. The House passed meaningful campaign finance reform. The majority of the Senate voted to do the same, but the Republican leadership brought sufficient pressure to bear so that the chief sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, Senator McCain, withdrew his reform amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. We had 52 votes in favor of his amendment to include the McCain-Feingold legislation in that bill. But rather than allow the majority to prevail, the Republican leadership sank the campaign finance reform effort. And when Senator Feingold announced his intention to offer the same amendment again to force another vote, the leadership chose to pull the Interior bill from the Senate floor. And since the Interior appropriations bill was pulled from the Senate floor in September, there has been no must-pass bill on the Senate floor that supporters could seek to amend to forward the campaign finance reform effort. Instead the Interior bill, along with a number of other appropriations bills, have been folded into a so-called omnibus appropriations bill. That means that anyone who wants to enact campaign finance reform by amending the omnibus spending bill would be forced to hold up almost all government appropriations--essentially to shut down the government--in order to debate the issue. The question is whether these strong-arm tactics will prevail. Whether, given the obstacles thrown in the path of campaign finance reform, we give up this fight or whether we continue to press on. Senators McCain and Feingold have said publicly that they will be back in the next Congress to fight for reform. I plan to stand with them. I believe the stakes are nothing less than the integrity of our electoral system. The time is over for empty rhetoric about the 1996 campaign and the need for stronger enforcement of the campaign laws already on the books. The laws now on the books are too often unenforceable, and everyone knows it. It is time to wipe away the crocodile tears and see clearly what the American people see. Campaign finance reform is long overdue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when the 105th Congress adjourns sine die in the next few days, the Senate will lose one of our nation's true heroes, and one of my personal heroes, Senator John H. Glenn, Jr. of Ohio. I rise today to pay tribute to this great American, a man I feel genuinely honored to call my friend. All of us old enough to remember John Glenn's flight into orbit around the earth on February 20, 1967 aboard Friendship 7 stand in awe of his courage and strength of character. But this enormous accomplishment followed on a distinguished record of heroism in battle as a Marine officer and pilot. He served his country in the Marine Corps for 23 years, including his heroic service in both World War II and the Korean conflict. And, in turn, his remarkable accomplishment in the history of space flight has been followed by an extraordinary Senate career over the past 24 years, as the only Ohio Senator in history to serve four consecutive terms. For the 20 years that I have been in the Senate, I have served side by side with John Glenn in both the Governmental Affairs Committee which he chaired for many years and now serves as Ranking Minority Member and the Armed Services Committee where he serves as the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Airland Forces. More recently, I have served with John Glenn on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This has given me a front row seat to watch one of the giants of the modern day U.S. Senate do the hard, grinding work of legislative accomplishment. Over the years, John Glenn has led the fight for efficiency in government, for giving the American people more bang for that tax ``buck''. He was the author of the Paperwork Reduction Act. He has worked to streamline federal purchasing procedures, and led the fight to create independent inspectors general in federal agencies. He was the point man in the Senate for the Clinton Administration's battle to reduce the size of the federal workforce to the lowest levels since the Kennedy Administration. He and I have fought side by side to block extreme efforts to gut regulatory safeguards in the name of reform and for the passage of a sensible approach to regulatory reform to restore confidence in government regulations. Throughout his career, John Glenn has made himself an enemy of wasteful spending and bureaucracy, yet a friend of the dedicated federal worker. John Glenn has steadfastly served as a powerful advocate for veterans. He led the effort to bring the Veterans Administration up to cabinet-level and to provide benefits to veterans of the Persian Gulf conflict. On the Armed Services Committee, John Glenn has brought his enormous credibility to bear time and again both in that Committee and on the Intelligence Committee on the side of needed programs and weapons and against wasteful and unnecessary ones like the B-2 bomber. Perhaps John Glenn's most important role, however, has been as the author of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act and as the Senate's leader in fighting the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. In this area, the Senate will sorely miss his clear vision, eloquent voice and consistent leadership. Mr. President, John Glenn, of course, has remained the strongest and most effective voice in the Senate for the nation's space program. Many of us will be on hand to watch the launch of his second NASA mission later this month, 31 years after the first. At age 77, John Glenn has volunteered to go back into space to test the effects of weightlessness on the aging process, and once again inspires our nation and sets an example for us all--an example of courage, character, sense of purpose, and, yes, adventure. No person I've known or know of has worn his heroism with greater humility. John Glenn is, to use a Yiddish word, a true mensch, a good and decent man. John Glenn and his beloved wife, Annie, are simply wonderful people. They, their children and grandchildren are the All-American family. My wife Barbara and I will keenly miss John and Annie Glenn as they leave the Senate family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when the Congress ends, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana will retire from the Senate. Dan Coats and I have served together on the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. On the Armed Services Committee, Dan Coats has served ably as the Chairman of the Airland Forces Subcommittee. He is a forceful proponent of a strong national defense and has consistently supported efforts to assure that our men and women in the military remain the best trained and equipped in the world. Although Dan Coats was one of the leading proponents in the Senate of the version of the line-item veto which was passed and signed into law, and I joined with Senators Byrd and Moynihan in arguing in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court that that legislation was unconstitutional, I greatly respected the diligence and integrity with which he fought that battle. My friend from Indiana and I have worked together for several years to prevent our states and communities from becoming dumping grounds for solid waste from other areas of the country and outside the country. He has been a persistent advocate of giving states and local governments the power to stem the flow of garbage flooding into their jurisdictions. I would like to thank him for all he has done on this matter, hopefully paving the way to a resolution which will give more power to the people whose quality of life is being harmed by a free interstate flow of trash. Mr. President, Dan Coats' outstanding service as a United States Senator came as no surprise to me or my constituents. He was born and raised in Jackson, Michigan and naturally this has prepared him, like most Michiganders, to excel in life. However, even though he has wandered off to Indiana, and wandered even further into the GOP, I have enjoyed the opportunities which I have had to work with Dan Coats and will miss his friendship next year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the United States Senate is about to lose one of the great orators of its long history. I never had the opportunity, of course, to hear Webster or Clay or Calhoun. But, I have heard Dale Bumpers of Arkansas on the Senate floor and it's hard to imagine anyone could have been a more forceful, eloquent, or effective speaker. I was reminded recently by a former staff member of one debate in particular. The issue was the proposed real estate development in Northern Virginia at the site of the Second Battle of Manassas. The debate had stretched into a Friday evening and a larger than usual number of Senators were on the floor. The manager had made an effective presentation when Dale Bumpers, the author of a more restrictive version of the bill rose to speak. Knowing that many of his colleagues love history, Dale Bumpers using detailed maps laid out the story of the Second Battle of Manassas more than a hundred years ago. Every Senator on the floor that night listened with rapt attention. As he reached the climax of his performance, Dale Bumpers said: ``Well, I could go on and on, but I want to just simply say . . . I believe strongly in our heritage, and I think our children ought to know where these battlefields are and what was involved in them. And, I don't want to go out there ten years from now with my grandson and tell him about the Second Battle of Manassas . . . and he says, ``Grandpa, wasn't General Lee in control of this war here--didn't he command the confederate troops.?'' ``Yes, he did.'' ``Well, where was he?'' ``He was up there where that shopping mall is.'' Senator Bumpers then said, ``I can see a big granite monument inside that mall's hallway right now: `General Lee Stood On This Spot'. Now if you really cherish our heritage, as I do, and you believe that history is very important for our children, you'll vote for my amendment.'' Rarely in the modern Senate do we see issues actually decided in debate on the floor. But, I suspect that that night I watched Dale Bumpers, with that speech, win the ``Third Battle of Manassas''. Dale Bumpers has served in the Senate for four terms. He has been one of the most consistent voices for elimination of wasteful government spending. We will all miss his leadership in efforts to reform federal mining law and grazing fees. His battles against the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which he won in 1984, the superconducting super collider which he finally won in 1993 and the space station which he did not win, have become legendary. Dale Bumpers and I both take pride in the fact that we were among the few Senators to vote against the Reagan tax cut and unfunded defense buildup of 1981 which together led to the huge deficits of the 1980's. Dale would have made a great President because he is a person whose clarity of expression is matched by the courage of his vision and his committment to America's working families. Mr. President, when the 106th Congress convenes next year, the Senate will seem an emptier body in the absence of one of its most memorable leaders and all of us in the Senate family with miss Dale and Betty Bumpers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when this Congress adjourns the Senate will lose its distinguished Minority Whip, the senior Senator from Kentucky, Wendell H. Ford. Wendell Ford has earned a reputation as the Senate's leader on aviation matters, and has long been one of the most influential members of the Senate on energy and election reform issues. He has battled for campaign finance reform legislation and led the fight for the ``motor voter'' bill which has expanded voter registration across the country. There is no member of the Senate more well-liked by his colleagues than Wendell Ford. However, I have often thought that one of the true measures of a Senator is how she or he relates to staff members, workers and other visitors to our nation's capital. Wendell Ford is among the most beloved. I think back to one particular incident. A member of my staff had brought his 5-year old son to work for the day. The staff member, needing to attend an important meeting, left his son to play with paper, crayons and stapler, under the supervision of several co- workers. He returned to find his son no longer at the desk where he had been left. A quick search followed. The young boy was found just outside the office in the Senate hallway where he had stopped Senator Wendell Ford and attempted to sell him a book (artful pages of crayon scribbles, stapled together) for a nickel. Senator Ford was in the act of earnestly requesting two and trying to convince the young man to accept a dime as superior to the requested nickel. Last March, Wendell Ford became the longest serving senator from Kentucky in the history of the U.S. Senate when he surpassed another beloved Kentuckian, Alben Barkley. Wendell Ford is unsurpassed in many things: He is unsurpassed in his love of family, love of country and love of the U.S. Senate. He is unsurpassed in his efforts to be helpful to new members. How many times he has set aside personal needs or took the time to help newcomers to this body to weather the self doubts or maneuver through the complex procedures. Wendell Ford is unsurpassed in his commitment to the hard working families whom are the backbone of this nation and in his passion for the ``little guy''. Mr. President, to me, the story I told of the little boy in the Senate hall characterizes Wendell Ford. Wendell is a genuine, kind, straight-forward and thoughtful man as well as an effective national leader. All of us in the United States Senate and our families will miss the inimitable Wendell Ford and his wife, Jean.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a colleague and friend who will be leaving the Senate when the 105th Congress adjourns, Dirk Kempthorne, the junior senator from Idaho. I have served with Dirk Kempthorne on both the Armed Services and Small Business Committees where I have come to respect his thoughtfulness, dedication and hard work. Dirk Kempthorne has been a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee where he has served as the Chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. As Chairman, he has demonstrated a commitment to the welfare of our men and women in uniform and their families. Senator Kempthorne joined with Senator Byrd in initiating the Congressional Commission on Military Training to examine issues related to basic training of men and women which will give its best advice to the Congress next year on whether current practices should be changed. While I didn't agree with Dirk Kempthorne on many of the specifics of his Unfunded Mandate legislation in 1995, I, like many of my colleagues in the Senate, was greatly impressed with the manner in which he managed the bill and his command of the complex details. Mr. Chairman, in the United States Senate we are called upon to work with colleagues of many differing points of view. While Dirk Kempthorne and I sit on separate sides of the aisle and sometimes disagree on issues before the Senate, it has always been a pleasure to deal with him. He is always an able advocate for his position, and always a gracious gentleman.