Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished Chairman of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the very important issue of Federal courthouse security. As I am sure the Chairman is aware, each day Federal courthouses across the country must temporarily detain thousands of prisoners awaiting trials, hearings and interviews. The facilities must be secure because the courthouses are occupied by members of the public and the judiciary. For example, the U.S. Marshal's Service, which oversees Federal courthouse security, recommends that larger courthouses be equipped with a secure garage area referred to as a ``sally port'' where prisoners can be transferred to the courthouse by van or bus, a detention facility where prisoners can be temporarily held, secure interview rooms where prisoners can be questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and if possible some separate secure hall or corridor through which a violent or dangerous prisoner can be transferred to a courtroom apart from the public and the judiciary.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that many of the older Federal courthouses do not have proper facilities to adequately secure prisoners and assure the safety of the public and the judiciary. For example, in my own state of Michigan the U.S. Courthouse in Detroit, which is a large older courthouse, is in desperate need of security improvements. The building contains no sally ports, and prisoners are transferred from vans and buses in the same modern ventilation systems that control the spread of air bourne diseases such as tuberculosis. Also, there are no interview rooms in which defendants or prisoners acting as witnesses for the Government can be questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorneys or their own counsel. This has led to difficulties for the local U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Marshal, who has been forced to use extra members of his staff that are needed elsewhere to instead guard meeting rooms while the interviews take place. Moreover, the Detroit courthouse has no secure corridor to transfer prisoners from the detention cells to the courtrooms so that dangerous prisoners must be transferred in the same halls that are used by the public. Finally Mr. Chairman, the Marshal's Service has informed me that there is also a problem with many newly constructed courthouses, which cannot be opened because insufficient money is available to equip the building with a minimum level of security systems such as security cameras and monitors. I want to commend the Chairman and ranking member for appropriating money specifically for courthouses in Detroit and Grand Rapids. However, I would ask that more money be made available for courthouse security projects.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today Senator Thompson and I, as sponsors of S. 981, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998, are putting into the Congressional Record a proposed amendment we will offer when S. 981 is brought to the Senate floor for consideration. The amendment reflects changes to the bill we have agreed to make in response to a number of concerns about the bill identified by the Administration and Members of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We are putting it in the Record at this time, to make the language available to the public and persons interested in this bill. We are also putting into the Record today the letter of July 15th from Acting OMB Director Jack Lew, stating that the Administration will sign the bill if the changes included in the Managers' Amendment are made and the bill passes both Houses in the same form. We welcome the support of the Administration in this effort and hope we can get the bill to the floor as soon as possible. OMB stated in their analysis of costs and benefits of federal regulations in 1997 that regulation has enormous potential for good and harm. ``The only way,'' OMB said, ``we know to distinguish between the regulations that do good and those that cause harm is through careful assessment and evaluation of their benefits and costs.'' S. 981 would build that careful evaluation into the regulatory process of all the regulatory agencies. OMB estimated that of the significant or major regulations currently in effect, we have received approximately $300 billion in benefits at a cost of some $280 billion. We know that through the appropriate use of cost benefit analysis and risk assessment we can improve those figures. In a well-respected analysis of 12 major EPA rules and the impact of cost-benefit analysis on those rules, the author, Richard Morgenstern, former Associate Assistant Administrator of EPA and a visiting scholar at Resources for the Future, concluded that in each of the 12 rule makings, economic analysis helped reduce the costs of all the rules and at the same time helped increase the benefits of 5 of the rules. Report after report acknowledges the importance of good cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment for all agencies. It's long past time to get these basic requirements into statute. S. 981 offers us the best opportunity to do that. The Managers' Amendment Senator Thompson and I will be offering to S. 981 reconfirms our intention that the bill not diminish or affect an agency's responsibility to carry out the purposes of the substantive statute under which the agency is regulating. At the same time, the amendment does nothing to weaken the important requirements of the bill that agencies do a thorough and competent analysis of the costs and benefits of the major regulations they issue. Mr. President, I believe S. 981 will significantly improve the regulatory process. If enacted, it will build confidence in the regulatory programs that are so important to this society's well-being, and will result in a better, and I believe a less contentious, regulatory process. Those of us who believe in the benefits of regulation to protect health and safety have a particular responsibility to make sure that regulations are sensible and cost- effective. When they aren't, the regulatory programs--which are so vital to our health and well being--come under attack. By providing an open regulatory process guided by reasonableness and common sense, we are protecting important programs from harmful attacks. Mr. President, I ask that copies of three letters exchanged between the Administration and Senator Thompson and me be printed in the Record. I am also pleased to announce that the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, has been added as a cosponsor to the bill, S. 981. The letters follow: Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, March 9, 1998. Hon. Fred Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to provide the Administration's views on S. 981, the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998. The Administration commends the thoughtful effort by both you and Senator Levin to address numerous concerns raised by the Administration and by others about the bill as introduced. The Administration believes strongly in responsible regulatory reform. President Clinton's issuance of Executive Order No. 12866 was predicated on his belief that government should do a better job of assessing risks and evaluating costs and benefits before issuing major rules. While we have been skeptical of the need for further comprehensive regulatory reform legislation at this time, we have sought to work with the Committee to ensure that any bill advances the President's regulatory reform principles without creating unwarranted costs to taxpayers or needless burdens on agencies acting to protect human health, safety, or the environment. The substitute bill issued earlier this month contains significant improvements over last summer's draft. We very much appreciate this effort. While the substitute is responsive to many of our concerns, there are still serious issues remaining. One of the problems with comprehensive legislation is that so many different kinds of rulemaking are affected. We want to be sure that any new law meets a simple test: that it truly improves the regulatory system, and does not impair--by creating more litigation, more red tape, and more delay--the agencies' ability to do their jobs. We are interested in working with you to see if we can find the common ground. After a full review of the substitute to S. 981, we have concluded that the bill does not yet meet the test we have articulated, and therefore the Administration would oppose the bill if it were to be adopted in its current form. Our concerns are briefly outlined below, and we have developed and enclosed for your consideration a set of modifications to the bill that would remedy these and other concerns while remaining faithful to the sponsors' intent. As you know from our past conversations, many of these are critical to achieving an acceptable result. 1. Judicial Review. The Administration remains concerned that the judicial review provisions would promote tactical litigation over errors that were not material to the outcome of a particular rulemaking. We know that this conflicts with the sponsors' intent, as reflected in earlier hearing discussions. To avoid additional litigation over major rules, the troubling ambiguity in the current version of the bill should be eliminated. 2. Implicit Supermandate. We have been pleased that the sponsors of S. 981 consistently have agreed with the view that regulatory reform legislation should not alter or modify the substantive reach of particular statutes designed to protect human health, safety, or the environment. We remain concerned that the current language of the bill would be construed to narrow the range of discretion available to agencies under their existing statutory mandates to protect human health, safety, or the environment. The range of discretion available to agencies under current law must be expressly preserved to avoid an implicit supermandate. 3. Risk Assessment. The Administration believes that, while there have been improvements in Section 624, this section needs to be revised still further to eliminate the imposition of burdensome requirements where those requirements will not enhance major rules. For example, section 624 includes in its sweep an unbounded category of agency actions that are not rulemakings, as well as major rules where Congress has not predicated regulatory standards on risk assessment. These should be excluded. In addition, the requirement for revision of risk assessments threatens an endless and costly analytical process, reopened with each new study, that would provide additional fodder for protracted litigation. We also remain concerned that certain provisions are too specifically tailored to analysis of cancer risks, and are thus ill-suited to other objectives, such as an evaluation of risks related to environmental and natural resource protection, worker safety, or airworthiness. 4. Peer Review. The Administration is very concerned about requiring peer review in contexts where the process would add significantly to costs and delays of the regulatory process without any foreseeable benefit. For example, the requirement that cost-benefit analyses be subject to peer review would add little to the review already performed by the Office of Management and Budget in our regulatory review process. In addition, the requirement that peer review be entirely independent of the regulating agency would displace well- established and credible peer review mechanisms, while making good peer review virtually impossible in highly specialized subject areas (e.g. nuclear safety). We also believe that the statute should require no more than one round of peer review for each major rule. 5. Review of Past Regulations. While the Committee responded to many of the Administration's earlier concerns about review of past regulations, the current version of the bill creates two different, uncoordinated and likely duplicative processes for the review of past regulations, imposing a major burden on agencies and needless expense on taxpayers. The second of these should be deleted, and the cycle of review in the first should be set at 10 years. 6. Needless Burdens. A number of the bill's requirements would impose substantial costs on agencies where there would be no conceivable benefit to the public or regulated entities. For example, the bill imposes its analytical requirements and review requirements even where the costs of compliance with the regulation have been incurred by the regulated community and no costs can be avoided by selecting a different regulatory option. Our proposed changes address other examples as well. 7. Definitions and other issues. There are several definitions and other provisions that need to be added or modified to ensure clarity, to discourage unwarranted litigation that would delay new safeguards, to protect the constitutional prerogatives of the President and the deliberative process within the Executive Branch, and to eliminate unwarranted burdens on agencies. While many of these changes appear minor, it would be difficult to overstate their importance to us in evaluating the cumulative effect of this bill. In developing revisions to the bill that would address our concerns, we have sought to suggest changes that are consistent with our understanding of the sponsors' intent and with the spirit of our very constructive discussions with the Committee staff. We would welcome a further opportunity to work with you before the bill is reported by the Committee. Sincerely, Franklin D. Raines, Director.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that a summary of S. 981 and a summary of the proposed manager's amendment be printed in the Record. The material follows: Summary of Levin-Thompson Regulatory Improvement Act The Levin-Thompson regulatory reform bill would put into statute requirements for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of the rulemaking process. It builds on the bipartisan Roth-Glenn bill unanimously reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 1995. It requires agencies to do a cost-benefit analysis when issuing rules that cost $100 million or have other significant impacts. The agency must determine whether the benefits of the rule justify its costs; whether the rule is more cost-effective, or provides greater net benefits, than other regulatory options considered by the agency; and whether the rule adopts a flexible regulatory option. If the agency determines that the rule does not do so, the agency is required to explain the reasons why it selected the rule, including any statutory provision that required the agency to select the rule. If the rule involves a risk to health, safety or the environment, the bill requires the agency to do a quality risk assessment to analyze the benefits of the rule. Risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses for rules costing $500 million would undergo independent peer review. During the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, the rulemaking agency is required to consider substitution risks--that is, risks that could be expected to result from the implementation of the regulatory option selected by the agency--and to compare the risk being regulated with other risks with which the public may be familiar. In presenting the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, the rulemaking agency is required to present the results of the analysis and assessment in a clear and understandable form, including an executive summary of: the expected benefits and costs of the rule and the agency's cost-benefit determinations; the risk addressed by the rule and the results of any risk assessment; the benefits and costs of the other regulatory options considered by the agency; and the key assumptions and scientific or economic information upon which the agency relied. The cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit determinations, and risk assessment are required to be included in the rulemaking record and to be considered by the court, to the extent relevant, only in determining whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, if the agency fails to perform the cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment or peer review, the court may remand or invalidate the rule, giving due regard to prejudicial error, and in any event shall order the agency to perform it. The bill codifies the review procedure now conducted by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and requires public disclosure of OIRA's review process. Finally, the bill requires the Director of OMB to contract for a study on the comparison of risks to human health, safety and the environment and a study to develop a common basis for risk communication with respect to carcinogens and noncarcinogens and the incorporation of risk assessments into cost-benefit analyses. Summary of Proposed Managers' Amendment to S. 981 Senator Levin and Senator Thompson plan to offer a Managers' Amendment when S. 981 is brought to the floor for Senate consideration. The Amendment would include the following: 1. Judicial Review The bill as reported requires a court to consider the cost- benefit analysis, cost-benefit determinations, and risk assessment in determining whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious. The bill as reported also requires a court to remand or invalidate a rule if the agency fails to perform the cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit determinations or risk assessment, or to provide for peer review as required by S. 981. The Managers' Amendment modifies that requirement by giving the court the discretion to remand or invalidate the rule. The Managers' Amendment also adds a specific clarifying sentence that the adequacy of compliance with the specific requirements for performing the cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and peer review is not otherwise independent grounds for remanding or invalidating a rule. The Managers' Amendment also requires a court to order an agency to perform the cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit determinations, risk assessment, or peer review whenever the agency fails to do so, even if the court allows the rule to take effect. 2. Relationship to Other Statutes The Managers' Amendment adds two additional provisions to the savings clause in order to reiterate that S. 981 does not contain a ``supermandate'' that would override or alter the substantive standards of the statute under which the rule is being issued. The Managers' Amendment confirms that S. 981 does not alter the range of regulatory options the agency has authority to adopt under the statute authorizing the agency to promulgate the rule or the deference otherwise accorded by the courts to the agency in construing such statute pursuant to the Chevron decision. 3. Review of Rules The bill as reported contained two provisions for the review of existing rules: one for major rules and one for rules affecting small businesses and small governments. The Managers' Amendment strikes both review of rules provisions. S. 981 will impose new and important responsibilities on federal agencies to conduct their rulemakings with greater care and thoroughness. In order to direct the resources of the agencies to fully carrying out these requirements, the provisions for the review of existing rules were stuck. Of course, agencies remain free to review existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act on their own initiative, at the request of an interested party, or pursuant to Presidential directive. 4. Risk Assessment The bill as reported requires a quality risk assessment to be performed for each major rule with a primary purpose to address risks to health, safety or the environment, as well as for risk assessments that are not the basis for a rulemaking and that the OMB Director determines may have a substantial impact on public policy or the economy. The Managers' Amendment narrows the coverage of the bill with respect to risk assessments that are not the basis of a rulemaking to those risk assessments that the Director anticipates are likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 millon or more. 5. Peer review The bill as reported requires independent peer review of the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment for each major rule. The Managers' Amendment would modify the application of peer review of the cost-benefit analysis to only those rules that the agency or OMB Director reasonably anticipates are likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $500 million or more. The Managers' Amendment clarifies that members of agency advisory boards required by statute and persons who serve as contractors or grantees to the agency conducting the peer review are not precluded from serving as peer reviewers solely because of the requirement that the peer reviewers be ``independent of the agency.'' The Managers' Amendment also claifies that only one peer review of a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is required by S. 981. 6. Net benefits The Managers' Amendment clarifies that application of a net benefits analysis under S. 981 is not intended to be limited to only quantifiable benefits; S. 981 requires the net benefits analysis to include consideration of nonquantifiable as well as quantifiable benefits. 7. Substitution risk The Managers' Amendment, in an effort to clarify the scope of responsibility required of an agency in assessing applicable substitution risks, incorporates the language in the bill used to define costs and benefits. Thus, substitution risk is defined in the Managers' Amendment as ``a reasonably identifiable significant increased risk to health, safety or the environment expected to result from a regulatory option.'' The definition also makes it clear that substitution risk does not include ``risks attributable to the effect of an option on the income of individuals.'' 8. Exemptions The bill as reported exempts from coverage of the legislation ``a rule or agency action that authorizes the introduction into commerce, or recognizes the marketable status of, a product.'' The Managers' Amendment both expands and limits this exemption. It expands it by adding ``removal'' of a product as well as ``introduction;'' it limits this exemption by applying it only to rules ``under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.'' 9. Other The Managers' Amendment would make a number of other technical or minor changes to the bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. It embodies a historical principle that has been embedded in most of our psyches and consciousness, which is that an individual has a right to counsel--particularly an individual involved in the criminal justice system has a right to counsel. Our good friend from Utah says, well, someone appearing before a grand jury can leave the room and get counsel. Indeed, he knows of cases, as do I, where somebody who is in front of a grand jury leaves the room after every question to go outside the door and talk to an attorney. What is the common sense of requiring somebody who is entitled to counsel not to be able to get that counsel inside the grand jury room? What is the common sense of forcing somebody in front of the jury to leave at the end of each question--leave the grand jury room to go talk to his or her attorney? How does that meet the ends of either common sense or justice--to force that rigmarole, that process, when we come to something as fundamental and basic as the right to counsel? I don't think anyone here questions that there is a right to counsel under our Constitution. The question is, Why not then permit that right to be exercised inside the grand jury room? Why not permit the advice to be given to somebody inside the grand jury room, rather than to force that person at the end of each question to say, ``Excuse me, I want to go outside the grand jury room to consult with my counsel''? The only argument that I have heard against permitting that is that, somehow or other, that would tie a grand jury in knots, as our good friend from Alabama just said. But under this amendment, that is not possible, because under this amendment, as modified, it carries out the original language of this amendment, which says that, ``A counsel for a witness shall be allowed to be present in the grand jury room only during the questioning of the witness and only to advise the witness, and shall not be permitted to address the attorney for the government, or any grand juror, or otherwise participate in the proceedings before the grand jury.'' That is it. This amendment would only permit the attorney, which every person under this Constitution has a right to at least hire, to give advice to a citizen inside the grand jury room instead of forcing that person to leave each time. I think it is a modest amendment. It is a modest amendment because it makes sure that we will not tie up a grand jury in knots. It is a modest amendment because it only says that what we know is right, that someone ought to have a right to counsel when they become involved in the criminal justice system--something that we know is right and something that we know is guaranteed, which is the right to counsel, to be exercised in a sensible way, in a way that doesn't undercut and diminish that very right. To be forced to leave the grand jury room after each question, in front of that grand jury, it seems to me, undermines the very right to counsel which is guaranteed in the Constitution. But, at a minimum, we, it seems to me, as people who want to defend this Constitution, should say, if there is a right--and there is one--that it ought to be exercisable in a commonsense way. In 90 percent of the grand jury proceedings, the witnesses are law enforcement officers or other governmental officials who are not likely even to have an attorney or want an attorney. But in those other 10 percent of the cases, it seems to me only fair, only common sense, to avoid the absurdity of making a witness leave the grand jury room after every question in order to exercise a constitutional right to the advice of counsel. I want to close by emphasizing the words of this amendment, because I think they are very important: ``The counsel that a witness is allowed to have in the grand jury room under this amendment is present only during the questioning of the witness and''--these are the key words-- ``only to advise the witness and not to address the attorney for the government or address any grand juror, or to otherwise participate in the proceedings before the grand jury.'' Many of our States allow the attorney to be inside of the grand jury room. Some States do, some States don't. But we have to make up our own minds as to what makes the most sense in this Federal system. It seems to me the most fundamental form of common sense. Forcing a person to get up, walk through the door, and leave the room to talk to someone, I believe, diminishes and undermines the very fundamental right that people have to the advice of counsel. So there is no tying up in knots in this amendment. This amendment precludes any possibility that an attorney inside the grand jury room will address the court, will address the grand jurors, will address the prosecutor. All that is permitted under this amendment, and all that is required under this amendment, is that the counsel for the witness be allowed to be present in the grand jury room, and only to advise his or her client. I want to commend the Senator from Arkansas for his extraordinary courage and, as always, his eloquence in presenting a case. I think that if we will all think about this basic right overnight, hopefully the majority of this body will do what at least a number of States have done, and that is to permit the attorney to be inside the grand jury room solely for the purpose of advising the witness. I thank the good Senator for his leadership. technical assistance funding

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I just state for the Record with regard to the proposal just offered, there have been ongoing efforts to clear a unanimous consent agreement on each of the items just mentioned. From the Democratic side, we can enter a unanimous consent agreement with regard to S. 442 and S. 1619. However, at this time, we are still attempting to get clearance on a unanimous consent agreement on S. 1482, but are not in a position, today, to enter into such an agreement. If the majority leader wants to call the bill up with no agreement, then, perhaps, we can do that, but for the Record, Mr. President, the Democratic side can now enter an agreement on S. 442 and on S. 1619. If the other side is ready to do that, we can go forth. Otherwise, I have to object to the consent request just propounded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. First, let me thank the Democratic leader for those kind comments. It is my intention just to briefly amplify what the Democratic leader said here this afternoon. And I am greatly appreciative for the tremendous support that he has given to an effort to achieve a bipartisan approach to an issue which should be approached in a bipartisan manner. There is no justification for partisanizing this issue. It will weaken our security if we do so. And the Democratic leader's effort to insist that we approach this issue in a bipartisan way, I hope, will produce some results. Mr. President, the statement that was released last Tuesday by the majority leader was a highly partisan approach to the multiple hearings which we have had in the Senate relative to the export of satellites to China. I happen to sit on three of the four Senate committees that have held these hearings, so I speak from personal experience when I say that the majority leader's statement omitted some of the most important testimony that those committees received. His statement also conveyed the false impression that the statement was a bipartisan product, when to the best of my knowledge not a single Democrat was consulted or even knew that the statement was being prepared. The majority leader's statements claim that he was being careful not to rush to judgment, but then he offered such unequivocal conclusions as: The Clinton Administration's export controls for satellites are wholly inadequate, [and that] they have not protected sensitive U.S. technology, [and that] national security concerns are regularly downplayed and even ignored, [and that] sensitive technology related to satellite exports has been transferred to China, [and that] China has received military benefit from U.S. satellite exports. To my knowledge, Mr. President, not one of the Senate committees investigating these issues has reached those conclusions. The evidence that the majority leader offered to support his conclusions ignored some of the most important testimony that we received, obviously, because it contradicted their conclusions offered. For example, the majority leader's statement ignored testimony by senior Department of Defense and State officials on June 18 and 25 and on July 8 that the 1996 Clinton Executive order ``strengthened'' the Department of Defense's role in Commerce export licenses, rather than weakening it, and also ignored the fact that those Department of Defense and State Department officials believed ``it would be a bad thing'' to return to State licensing of commercial satellites. In a June 18 hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security on which I sit, when responding to a question on whether commercial satellite export licensing should be returned to the State Department, Department of Defense, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Policy Jan Lodal testified that ``I think it would be a bad thing to do.'' And Assistant Under Secretary of State for International Security John Holum, testified, ``I agree. . . . I would recommend against that.'' Mr. President, the statement of the majority leader last Tuesday also ignored the Department of Defense and State Department letters which were included in the June 18 Governmental Affairs Committee subcommittee hearing record and which stated that each agency has an adequate opportunity to revise and support the issuance of all satellite export licenses actually issued by Commerce since 1990. The majority leader's statement ignored testimony on June 18 by senior State and DOD officials, stating that they are unaware of any transfer of sensitive U.S. satellite technology to China that has harmed U.S. national security. Mr. Holum testified, ``[W]e do not believe that any launch of a commercial satellite under this policy since 1988 has resulted in a transfer of significant technology or assistance to Chinese either space-launch vehicle capabilities or missile capabilities.'' Mr. Lodal testified, ``I agree. We're not aware of any situation in which such transfer harmed U.S. security.'' Yet the majority leader's statement ignores that kind of testimony. Now, the majority leader's statement cited testimony critical of U.S. export control from a June 25 hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee by an individual that the majority leader described as a ``senior official of the Defense Trade and Security Administration,'' without mentioning testimony the following week before the Senate Armed Services Committee revealing that this individual, Dr. Peter Leitner, had been demoted by the Bush administration from a senior policy position to a lower-level licensing officer within that office. The statement of the majority leader also omitted testimony on June 25 and on July 9 by some of Dr. Leitner's current and former superiors at the Department of Defense contradicting Mr. Leitner's facts and assertions. The majority leader's statement cites testimony by the GAO before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 10, but omitted testimony from the same hearing indicating that the General Accounting Office has not reached a conclusion on whether current export controls are adequate to protect national security, and he omitted to say that the Intelligence Committee had requested the General Accounting Office to conclude that analysis. Now, the relevant testimony came from Katherine Schinasi, the Associate Director of the International Affairs Division at the General Accounting Office. Responding to a question about Department of Defense's ability to effectively advocate national security interests in the current export control process, she testified on behalf of the General Accounting Office that, ``We have not looked at how that process has operated.'' The majority leader's statement indicates that moving satellites from the State Department to the Commerce Department eliminated the requirement that Congress receive notice of individual export licenses. The statement failed to mention the legal requirement that the President must notify Congress of all national security waivers authorizing commercial satellite exports to China, whether the export license is issued by State or by Commerce. The majority leader's statement also failed to note that Congress has, in fact, received timely notice of every waiver granted to export a satellite to China; and that Congress has received timely notice of the decisions in 1992 and 1996 to transfer satellites from the State Department to the Commerce Department. It fails to acknowledge that despite receiving all those notices, Congress took no action to express disagreement with the decisions made. The majority leader's statement also omitted mention of the National Security Council letter included in the July 9 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing record, stating that the National Security Council conducts the same waiver review process for commercial satellite exports to China, whether the export license is issued by the State Department or by the Commerce Department. The majority leader's report omitted testimony on June 18 and July 8 before the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on international security, by senior Defense and State Department officials that, after the 3 unmonitored satellite launches took place in China, a policy decision was made in 1996 and remains in effect today, requiring the Defense Department to monitor all satellite launches, whether or not a satellite contains sensitive technology. Mr. Lodal, speaking for the Defense Department, testified on June 18 that Communication [satellite] licenses include strong safeguards, including DOD monitoring . . . DOD currently reviews all communication satellite licenses to ensure that the proposed export would be consistent with U.S. national security interests . . . [A]fter the implementation of the 1992 Bush administration decision to transfer to Commerce purely commercial satellites, and before the 1996 revision, there were three launches that were not monitored . . . We're not aware of any transfer of technology from these unmonitered launches that contributed to China's missile and military satellite capabilities. He continued, speaking for the Defense Department: Nevertheless, DOD did conclude that full monitoring would be a strong safeguard at relatively low cost to the companies, and that it should be applied to all license cases, even those that did not require Department of State licenses. And this was agreed by all agencies and incorporated as a requirement in 1996, when jurisdiction was transferred to Commerce for all commercial communications satellites. . . .'' The majority leader's statement identified the major ``military benefit'' of China launches of U.S.-made commercial satellites to be the access gained by the Chinese military to an improved commercial telephone system, without acknowledging that that same so-called military benefit would have accrued if China had instead launched European-made commercial satellites. The majority leader's statement ignored testimony from Clinton administration critics on July 9 before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States export control system is still the ``best'' and most restrictive in the world. Now, the majority leader has the right to say whatever he wishes on the subject of satellite exports to China. But he is wrong to suggest, as his statement did, that his conclusions were bipartisan, or that they were reached by the Senate committees examining this issue. His statement struck a major blow to whatever hopes there were that the Senate committees would proceed in this matter in a bipartisan way, with emphasis on the facts rather than on partisan politics. Mr. President, I hope that a bipartisan approach can still be salvaged. But I think it is fair to say that that goal, that effort which is so important to the national security of this Nation, was given a set-back by the highly partisan comments of the majority leader on this floor last Tuesday. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished majority manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding the Great Waters program. As the Senator from Missouri is aware, the Great Waters program is important to my state, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and Lake Champlain area and all states with coastal waters. The program is intended to monitor atmospheric deposition of toxic air pollutants, provide information on these pollutants sources and loadings in our surface waters, and recommend to Congress any necessary changes in the Clean Air Act to prevent serious adverse effects to public health and serious or widespread environmental effects. These are important multi- media tasks that should receive Congress's full support. This program will help us identify and reduce toxic air pollution in an efficient way. The FY99 budget request for the Great Waters program, also known as section 112(m) of the Clean Air Act, is $1.484 million. In FY 98, the program received $2.612 million in appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee has included language in its report urging that the EPA ``--provide at least $3 million to carry out--the Great Waters program.'' I would hope that, at a minimum, the Senate would support this amount for this important program. Could the Senator indicate what the Senate's position would be in the conference on this matter?

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the Senator's assistance and attention to this issue. Sweetwater Branch Project, Gainesville, FL

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor Committee, signed by myself, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Wayne Allard, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Spencer Abraham, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Barbara Boxer, be included in the Record following this colloquy.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Wellstone amendment which increases from 12 to 24 months the limit on the amount of post- secondary education training that a state can count towards meeting its work requirement under the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Under the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, recipients could attend post-secondary education training for up to 24 months. I support the new law's emphasis on moving recipients more quickly into jobs, but I am troubled by the law's restriction on post secondary education training, limiting it to 12 months. The limitation on such advanced training raises a number of concerns, not the least of which is whether persons may be forced into low-paying, short term employment that will lead them back onto public assistance because they are unable to support their families. Mr. President, a majority of my colleagues in the Senate has previously cast their vote in support of making 24 months of post secondary education a permissible work activity under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. A year ago, on June 25, 1997, a Levin-Jeffords amendment to the Senate Reconciliation bill, permitting up to 24 months of post-secondary education, received 55 votes--falling five votes short of the required procedural vote of 60. I would also like to make note of the fact that the amendment had the support of the National Governors Association. Study after study indicates that short-term training programs raise the income of workers only marginally, while completion of at least a two-year associate degree has greater potential of breaking the cycle of poverty for recipients of public assistance. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median earnings of adults with an associate degree is 30 percent higher than adults with only a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues some examples of jobs that an individual could prepare for in a two-year vocational or community college program and the salary range generally applicable to the positions. One very productive specialty area is information technology. Graduates in this area are generally hired immediately following or in some cases prior to completing their program. According to a recent survey of the American Association of Community Colleges, information technology programs that have exhibited the most industry and labor force growth, with an average starting salary of $25,500 are as follows: (1) Computer Technology/Computer Information Systems. (2) Computer Applications and Software. (3) Computer Programming. (4) Microsoft Operating Systems. Other important two-year training programs that present opportunity for growth and self-sufficiency include: Accounting..............................................$14,000-$28,000 Law enforcement...........................................13,500-25,000 Dental hygiene............................................18,000-60,000 Resipiratory therapy/tech.................................21,000-32,000 Radiology technician......................................22,235-32,425 Legal assistant...........................................28,630-30,000 Child care development....................................23,590-29,724 Registered nurse..........................................24,400-38,135 Additionally, Mr. President, in an effort to further improve the success of welfare reform, this amendment would remove teens from being calculated in the 30% cap of those involved with work/education activities, ensuring that teens complete high school while giving states more flexibility in designing a welfare program that meets the needs of welfare recipients. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will help us reach the new law's intended goal of getting families permanently off of welfare and on to self-sufficiency.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Jeffords, in a colloquy on an important measure which will be a subject of discussion during the House-Senate conference on the Higher Education reauthorization Act. It has been observed that America does not send its athletes to the Olympic Games, Americans do. Indeed, the U.S. Olympic Committee, whose responsibilities include the support for training and selecting athletes to represent the United States in the Olympic and Pan America Games, is the only major national Olympic Committee from among the 197 participating nations that receives no funding whatsoever from its federal or state governments. All funds for training U.S. athletes must come from private sources, including an individual's personal resources. In September 2000 more than 800 young American men and women will gather in Sydney, Australia to represent their countrymen in the XXVII Olympiad. They will join more than 10,000 other athletes from nearly 200 nations to engage in friendly competition. Many will have spent more than a decade preparing for what Jesse Owens once referred to as ``fifteen seconds of glory.'' As they have since the modern Olympic Games were instituted in 1896, Americans back home will follow with great pride the accomplishments of the U.S. athletes, and will vicariously share in each triumph. But when the Olympic flame is extinguished and our American heroes return home most will leave forever the athletic careers to which they have devoted so much of their lives. The greatest homecoming we can prepare for our U.S. athletes is assistance in obtaining the educational foundation that will enable them to pursue productive lives outside of their athletic arenas. We can achieve this by reauthorizing the Olympic Education Scholarship program. Originally authorized in 1992, this important program recently expired; however, reauthorization language has been included in the House version of the Higher Education Act and it is my hope that our Senate conferees will support the House reauthorization of this important Olympic Education Scholarship program. The $5 million authorization level for this program would be an important step toward allowing these young men and women to simultaneously advance themselves on the training field and in the classroom.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I'm glad to see Section 3507 regarding tax matters partners in the conference report. It strikes me as unfair that the IRS has not been notifying partners of a TEFRA partnership when the IRS appoints a successor tax matters partner. Under the effective date provision, Section 3507 applies to selections of tax matters partners made by the IRS after the date of enactment. Does the enactment of Section 3507 create any inference that the IRS is not required to give such notice to partners of TEFRA partnerships under the due process clause of the United States Constitution?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the IRS Restructuring Act of 1998. Ten years ago, I worked with former Senator Pryor on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. That legislation grew out of hearings before the Governmental Affairs Committee which highlighted abuses by IRS employees against the taxpayers they are hired to serve. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights was landmark legislation that outlined the rights taxpayers have when dealing with the IRS including the right of the taxpayer to legal representation and the right to recover civil damages and attorneys fees from the IRS where they have engaged in abusive practices. While that legislation and the subsequent Taxpayer Bill of Rights II addressed some of the most egregious abuses, some abuses continue. The Finance Committee hearings have again shed light on abuses of taxpayer by some overzealous employees. While all of us want the IRS to be diligent in their collection of taxes owed to the federal government, we don't want the IRS to abuse its authority. This legislation is another step in the right direction. The bill contains an IRS Oversight Board which is intended to bring some private sector management and customer service expertise to the IRS. This Board is made up of nine members, six of whom are from the private sector and have an expertise in management of large organizations, tax laws, information technology and the concerns of taxpayers. The Board will review and approve strategic plans, operational functions and plans for major reorganization. In addition they will review operations at the IRS to monitor the Agency's treatment of taxpayers in general. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights II contained an office of Taxpayer Advocate. The Taxpayer Advocate has the responsibility of aiding taxpayer in their disputes with the IRS and reporting to Congress annually with suggestions outlining the most serious problems faced in working with IRS. Taxpayers can request that the taxpayer advocate issue a taxpayer assistance order if the taxpayer is suffering or about to suffer a significant hardship as a result of the manner in which the tax laws are being administered. A taxpayer assistance order may require the IRS to release property, cease any action or refrain from taking action. The bill before us expands the circumstances when a taxpayer assistance order may be issued. Currently, the direct point of contact for taxpayers seeking taxpayer assistance orders is a problem resolution officer appointed by a District Director. This bill replaces the present law problem resolution system with a system of local Taxpayer Advocates who report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. Under the bill, the local Taxpayer Advocate will have a phone number published and available to taxpayers, they must tell taxpayers that they are operated independently of any IRS office, and they are required to tell taxpayers that they do not disclose any information from the taxpayer to the IRS. In addition, the IRS is required to publish the right to contact the local Taxpayer Advocate on the statutory notice of deficiency. The Taxpayer Advocate will be required to publish an annual report to identify areas of the tax law that impose significant compliance burdens on taxpayers and the IRS, including recommendations and identify the ten most litigated issues for each category of taxpayer including recommendations on how to mitigate those problems. The bill contains other provisions that will improve the management of the agency. It also includes innocent spouse relief for those spouses who find themselves liable for taxes, interest or penalties due to the actions of their spouse. There's increased protections for taxpayers in the area of interest and penalty charges as well as in audit and collections. I am also especially encouraged by the stronger requirements imposed on the IRS to provide taxpayers with better information in regards to taxpayers rights, the appeals and collection process and potential liabilities when filing joint returns. While all of these reforms are steps in the right direction, there is nothing in this bill to simplify the tax code. Since the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Congress has amended the tax code 63 times. Just this past year, Congress passed and the President signed a tax bill which contained over 800 changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Now that this legislation is prepared to move to the President's desk for signature, it is time that we set our sights on tax simplification. tefra partnership

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the use of indiscriminate force by units of the Serbian special police and the Yugoslav armed forces in Kosovo must stop. If unchecked, the violence there could well spillover into Albania and Macedonia and could at some point involve other nations in the region, including our NATO allies. Acting at the direction of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian police and military units have brutally targeted civilians and used scorched earth tactics with a plan to drive ethnic Albanians out of their towns and villages. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata, around 65,000 people have been forced to flee their homes in Kosovo since March and prior to the latest Serbian special police and troop attack on the town of Belacevac. Of that number, around 12,000 have fled to neighboring Albania across treacherous mountains--some children had to walk barefoot for days. About 8,000 have fled to Montenegro and small numbers have sought refuge in Macedonia, where the United States maintains about 350 Army personnel as part of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force. Before I comment further on what I believe should be done to address the crisis in Kosovo, I would like to briefly describe how this crisis came about. Kosovo, with a population of 2 million of which more than 90 percent are ethnic Albanians, enjoyed autonomous province status under the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution. However, changes to the Serbian constitution in 1989 through 1991 revoked that autonomous province status and abolished the Parliament and Government of Kosovo. Since that time, Serbian authorities have carried out a policy of repression: firing ethnic Albanians from all public jobs and using arrests, brutal and often fatal beatings and other forms of intimidation in violation of commonly accepted human rights standards. In the face of this repressive policy, ethnic Albanians pursued a policy of non-violent resistance. They boycotted Serbian institutions and built their own parallel set of political, economic and social institutions. In 1992, they elected Ibrahim Rugova as president and a 130-member parliament. When the policy of non-violent resistance failed to make any progress, some ethnic Albanians turned to violence and over the past two years, the Kosovo Liberation Army has conducted attacks on Serbian police and other officials. On the night of February 28 of this year, Serbian special police reportedly killed more than 20 ethnic Albanians in a sweep through the Drenica region of Kosovo. Since late February, it is estimated that more than 200 ethnic Albanians have been killed in Kosovo at the hands of Serbian special police and military forces. As Serbian police forces have increased their violence against civilians, more and more ethnic Albanians have joined the Kosovo Liberation Army. Mr. President, the actions of Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen have been condemned by the entire international community. Russia, at the conclusion of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council meeting on June 12, 1998, joined the NATO defense ministers in condemning ``Belgrade's massive and disproportionate use of force as well as violent attacks by Kosovar Albanian extremists.'' The United Nations Security Council, by resolution 1160 adopted on March 31, 1998, condemned the excessive use of force by Serbian police forces against civilians and peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo and acting under Chapter VII of the Charter imposed a comprehensive arms embargo on Yugoslavia and urged the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia to begin gathering information related to the violence in Kosovo. The Security Council's action is important because, by taking under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has determined that the violence in Kosovo is a threat to international peace and security. This is important because, there is a possibility that Russia may use its veto to prevent the Security Council from authorizing the use of all necessary means to stop the violence in Kosovo. In this regard, I note with approval that both Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Cohen took the position that the Security Council's authorization was desirable but not required for NATO action to intervene in Kosovo. Mr. President, I applaud NATO's decision to conduct an air exercise in Albania and Macedonia to demonstrate its capability to project power rapidly in the region. I regret that Russian President Yeltsin was unable to gain Milosevic's commitment to withdraw Serbian special units from Kosovo, when they met in Moscow on June 16. Milosevic has already defaulted on his commitment to President Yeltsin to carry out no repressive actions against civilians. Mr. President, we all hope that this tragic situation will be resolved peacefully, but that does not appear to be likely. Bosnia has taught us that quick and decisive action can prevent a crisis from getting out of hand. We must not allow Milosevic to draw this crisis out, while the ethnic Albanian people of Kosovo suffer. The international community must let Milosevic know that he must halt the systematic campaign of repression and expulsions in Kosovo. He must withdraw his special police from Kosovo and return his military forces to their barracks. And he must engage in bona fide negotiations to restore a significant degree of autonomy to Kosovo. Anything else will be insufficient and justify strong action by the international community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Employees Health Benefit Children's Equity Act of 1998. This legislation concerns Federal employees who are under a court order to provide health insurance to their dependent children. If a Federal employee is under such a court order and his dependent children have no health insurance coverage, the Federal government would be authorized to enroll the employee in a ``family coverage'' health plan. If the employee is not enrolled in any health care plan, the Federal government would be authorized to enroll the employee in the ``family coverage'' plan of the standard option of the service benefit plan, typically Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The bill would also prevent the employee from canceling health coverage for his children for the term of the court order. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Employees Health Benefit Children's Equity Act of 1998. This legislation concerns Federal employees who are under a court order to provide health insurance to their dependent children. If a Federal employee is under such a court order and his dependent children have no health insurance coverage, the Federal government would be authorized to enroll the employee in a ``family coverage'' health plan. If the employee is not enrolled in any health care plan, the Federal government would be authorized to enroll the employee in the ``family coverage'' plan of the standard option of the service benefit plan, typically Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The bill would also prevent the employee from canceling health coverage for his children for the term of the court order. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a few moments we will be voting on two judges for the Federal court. The second of those judges is Victoria Roberts, a woman who I recommended for nomination to the President of the United States. She is exceedingly well qualified by temperament, by experience, to be a district court judge. She is only the second person in our history in Michigan who has been elected both president of the State bar of Michigan and the Wolverine Bar Association. I just thank Senator Hatch, the members of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Abraham, for their support of Victoria Roberts. I am delighted that her name has been recommended to the Senate and that we will be voting upon her confirmation in a few minutes. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3010

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we ask unanimous consent an amendment of Senator Murkowski be sent to the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe we had an understanding informally that that time would be alternated between persons in opposition and support, so that someone in support of the Byrd amendment, it seems to me, should now be the person recognized.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold one second?