Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. A hope in which I share, may I say. Thank you, Robert.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me just join Senator Thurmond in thanking Senator Byrd for his eloquent remarks on his home State on its birthday. We all join the Senator in wishing West Virginia happy birthday and on his tribute to fathers. What the Senator said about his family, his stepfather, his uncle, and other men who had such an impact on his life, brave men, modest men, men of modest means who had such an impact on his life, all live through him in us and those memories are shared with us. They become part of all of us. And so I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia for sharing those memories with us. I talk a lot back home about lifelong learning. When I talk to students when they graduate, whether high school or college, I say it is the learning that lies ahead of them also which is so important and they should never stop learning. We have greater opportunities for that now as adults because of some of the efforts, as a matter of fact, which the Senator from West Virginia has made to make possible lifelong learning for our citizens. We all still learn from Senator Byrd. It has been a learning experience for me, being with him in this Chamber, since the first day I was here, and that learning experience has never ceased. I do not know of any Member of this body who has not gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge from serving here with the senior Senator from West Virginia. So I thank the Senator for taking the time he did this morning to share those thoughts with us.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will address our friend from Arkansas first. Let me add my comments to the Senator from Virginia. We were just informed last night that this bill was going to be brought back to the floor. We expected there would be the resolution of two appropriations bills before this bill came to the floor. We didn't know when the bill would come back until late last night. As the Senator from Virginia has indicated, there was a ``Dear Colleague'' letter circulated indicating objections to any consideration of amendments relative to China, specifically those that might involve visas and other things in that letter, of which I am sure the Senator has a copy. In addition, there is a specific objection which the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, as indicated in his letter to the majority leader, to any setting aside, or to quote him: ``I object to any unanimous consent request designed to come to a time agreement on or to bring up such an amendment.'' And the amendment that he is referring to is any amendment in this dealing with the People's Republic of China. So as one of the managers of the bill here, the minority manager, I have the responsibility, as does the manager on the majority side, to protect Members when there are unanimous consent requests, knowing of objections to those requests. I, too, join our good friend from Virginia in expressing regret to the Senator from Arkansas for his inconvenience, but we were just informed last night. We were never asked whether or not there would be agreement to setting aside amendments and so forth so that the amendment or amendments of the Senator from Arkansas can be brought up. Having said all that, there is at least one of these amendments which I am hoping, perhaps, we might be able to get agreement on before this day is over; that is the fourth amendment, which has been dealt with by the Foreign Relations Committee. Unlike the first three amendments, which have not been, the fourth amendment, I understand, has been dealt with by the Foreign Relations Committee. Perhaps we could get that amendment cleared before the debate is over today. We would have to go back to the signers of these letters with these objections in order to accomplish that. But I surely would like to accommodate our friend from Arkansas, if we can, at least to that extent. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me again commend Senator Thurmond for his leadership on the committee. His chairmanship has been a distinguished one. He has worked hard to keep us together as a bipartisan committee. We have adopted this bill on a bipartisan basis. He and his staff have worked with me and our staff to work out the problems that we have had, and where there have been disagreements we have resolved them and moved on to other areas of importance. We are ready to get back to work on our bill. As the chairman mentioned, the Appropriations Committee has already reported the DOD appropriations bill, and we worked cooperatively with them, so it is important that we complete action on this authorization bill so we can get to conference. We have been working with Senators for the past several weeks on a number of amendments which we have been able to clear, and I hope that we can act on those cleared amendments here this morning. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the managers have accepted my amendment adding funds for two shoreline erosion projects along the Detroit River. The funds provided will allow reconnaissance surveys to go forward to help develop longer term plans for the important ongoing and comprehensive effort to revitalize the Detroit waterfront. I call to the attention of my colleagues that the Detroit River has been named by the Administration as an American Heritage River. Such recognition, combined with attention from the Army Corps and other Federal agencies, will assist in these redevelopment efforts. The managers have also accepted my and Senator Glenn's proposal to clarify that aquatic ecosystem restoration funds (section 206) can be used for sea lamprey barrier construction. The language in the amendment does not place a limit on the Corps' use of section 206 funds for this purpose. As my colleagues may know, the sea lamprey is a devastating invasive species that has plagued the Great Lakes since it first appeared and these barriers play an important role in preventing this species spread and population growth. The Corps can and should work with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to place these barriers in the most efficient spots. In addition, the managers have agreed to accept two important changes affecting contaminated sediments. The first is my and Senator Glenn's recommendation to increase the funds available for development of technology to remediate contaminated sediments. This is a pressing problem in the Great Lakes and across the country as EPA's recently published inventory of sediment quality establishes. The amount provided should help us make some progress in identifying cost- effective means of addressing this difficult pollution issue. The second is making it clear that the Corps can and Congress desires the Corps to spend funds to support the National Contaminated Sediment Task Force. This body was first authorized in WRDA 1992, but no Administration has requested funds to make this Task Force operational. The lack of funding for this body to date and the resulting lack of attention to this important matter must be changed. I would also note that the Committee has significantly increased the planning assistance to states, as I and my Great Lakes colleagues proposed, and that the Corps should use some of this increase to provide technical assistance, as authorized in section 401 of WRDA, to communities working on developing Remedial Action Plans in Areas of Concern. Mr. President, the diversion of Great Lakes waters out of the Great Lakes Basin is a matter of great concern to those of us from the Great Lakes region. Earlier this year, a Canadian firm announced plans and received permission from the Ontario Provincial government, permission which has since been withdrawn, to export water from Lake Superior to Asia. Also, the Army Corps has been considering a permit from a company in Wisconsin that wants to use ground water that would otherwise discharge into Lake Michigan for an industrial process then send the wastewater out of the Basin into the Mississippi River watershed. These and other activities, including litigation on the latter action, highlight the need for Congress to reemphasize that existing law prohibits such interbasin transfers, unless the process under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 is followed. Last year, the managers accepted an amendment I offered to prohibit the Corps from using appropriated funds to permit a diversion, though it was subsequently dropped in conference. Senators Glenn and Feingold and I had discussed offering a similar amendment to the FY99 bill clarifying that such permitting activities on the part of the Corps, and indeed, all Federal agencies, are prohibited under WRDA 1986 unless the Great Lakes States unanimously approve of any diversion. However, the Senator from Nevada, who also sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has offered his assistance on this matter, which needs attention and clarification when and if the Senate prepares and considers a new Water Resources Development Act for 1998. I thank him for that consideration and we will await our next opportunity. The Committee bill includes some other important items for Michigan and the Great Lakes. They include: $1.5 million for Corps' public facility research and development to control zebra mussels and other invasive species. $1 million for solar thermal energy dish/engine field verification, which would support work that has been done by Stirling Thermal Motors in Ann Arbor. $3 million for accelerated demonstration of federally sponsored research for renewable energy production and environmental remediation project at the Michigan Biotechnology Institute in Okemos. $.5 million for Great Lakes sediment transport and modeling. The Corps can use these funds to develop models to target Areas of Concern, such as the Saginaw River, for preventive measures to control future sediment loadings, $39.95 million for operation and maintenance (mainly dredging at 24 harbors, rivers and channels in Michigan), including $1.9 million for Pentwater Harbor, which was not in the budget request. $.5 million to begin preparation of the general design memo for replacement lock at Sault Ste. Marie. $6 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration. These funds can now be used to construct sea lamprey barriers, per the accepted amendment mentioned previously. $70 million more than proposed by the Committee, per the Jeffords/ Roth amendment, for solar and renewable energy research and development. This is the amount in the President's budget request. Mr. President, this is a good bill, despite the budget constraints that the managers faced in putting it together. I look forward to working with the managers and other Committee members on these important matters as they proceed to Conference.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. Res. 251, which has been introduced by myself and Senator Abraham, which I am confident will be passed later on today. This resolution congratulates the Detroit Red Wings for their second successive Stanley Cup victory. Tuesday night, the Red Wings defeated the Washington Capitals 4 to 1. This is the second time in 2 years that the Red Wings have swept the Stanley Cup finals--four straight. In perhaps the most moving and memorable moment of the evening, after the victory, the Stanley Cup was placed in the lap of Vladimir Konstantinov, who was injured after last year's Stanley Cup victory in an automobile accident. I have come to know Vlady and his wife Irina during this past year, when they have recovered, at least partly, from that terrible tragedy of a year ago. What is extraordinarily moving is the way the Red Wings--indeed, all the Red Wings' fans--have become a closer family as a result of that accident, the way they have surrounded Vlady with love and support. The whole town--indeed, our whole State and to some extent the entire country--has come to the support of Vladimir Konstantinov. When he was pushed in his wheelchair around the ice at the MCI Center on Tuesday night, with the Stanley Cup in his lap, surely we reached a new height in terms of what family means and what family is all about. The Red Wings have surely the greatest hockey fans on Earth. Detroit lives and breathes hockey, and there are a legion of fans all over our State and throughout the country who came to the MCI Center on Tuesday night. There was a sea of red shirts in the stands. I was one of those who had the pleasure of being there to see this very, very special victory. I also, though, want to not just pay my respects and appreciation to the players who brought home the cup again, and the Konstantinovs and those who supported that team, but also to the Caps fans who treated the Red Wings fans in the audience with such decency and civility. I have been to a lot of Red Wings games away from home where that was not true, where the opponents' fans, indeed, were quite hostile to their opponents. But on Tuesday night, as was true on Saturday night, the Caps fans treated us very, very civilly indeed. And when it came that moment, that very magic moment in the third period when the fans were serenading Vlady, who was sitting up with Irina in the stands, the Caps fans joined with the Red Wings fans in the arena singing, ``Vlady, Vlady, Vlady.'' That was also a moment I will always remember and cherish. Our captain, Steve Yzerman, won the Conn Smythe Trophy, deservedly so. He has been an extraordinary role model for so many young players, as Detroit Red Wings before him were role models for him. Speaking just for one more moment on that subject, when I was young and my brother Sander was young, we used to go down to Olympia frequently with my mother, going up to the cheapest seats available, three flights up in the balcony, where we rooted for an earlier generation of great Red Wings, the so-called Production Line of Sid Abel, Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay, and our great goalie Terry Sawchuck in those years, in the fifties, who brought home the Stanley Cup on many occasions to Detroit. That has happened again this week. The Red Wings fans, perhaps a million of them, have just finished celebrating in a parade down Woodward Avenue from the Fox Theater to the Hart Plaza. The Hart Plaza, by the way, is named after a former U.S. Senator, one who touched the hearts and the souls of this body, Phil Hart. The place where that parade started was the Fox Theater, and it was very appropriate that that be the place because that theater has been restored by the Ilitchs, Mike and Marian Ilitch, who are the owners of the Detroit Red Wings. I only wish I could be there to greet my friends the Ilitchs in person today, to thank them again for what they have done for our city. But how sweet that victory was, how moving that victory was, how important these events are in terms of gluing our communities together, bringing us together as family. With the shouts of, ``Go, Wings, go!'' still ringing in my ears, they now can savor the victory of a Stanley Cup. Just as their names are engraved on that cup, so their names will be engraved in this resolution when it passes, after Senator Abraham has an opportunity to get to the floor. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the Gorton amendment. This amendment would create a complicated, bureaucratic and arbitrary set of criteria for establishing payments to the plaintiffs' lawyers while leaving the fees of the tobacco companies' lawyers without restriction. The amendment would set forth unusually high hourly amounts for attorneys' fees which could lead to higher payments. The underlying legislation establishes a preferable process by setting up a three- person arbitration board to resolve disputes regarding the attorneys' fees. The board would have a representative of the plaintiff, a representative of the attorney, and a third party chosen jointly by those two arbitrators. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the City of Roseville, Michigan, which is celebrating its 40th birthday on June 20, 1998. Residents of Roseville are justifiably proud of their community's growth throughout the last 40 years. People have lived in the area known today as Roseville since before Michigan became a state in 1837. In its early years, Roseville was an agricultural area and its people were predominately farmers. In 1836, William Rose was appointed postmaster in the area and he established a permanent office in 1840, which he named the Roseville Post Office in honor of his father, who was a hero of the War of 1812. Thus the area received its name, though Roseville was not officially incorporated as a village until 1926. From its humble beginnings, Roseville has grown into an increasingly attractive place to live for people moving to the Detroit area. While it had previously been considered a small suburb of Detroit, in the 1950s Roseville's population increased dramatically. In 1950, the population of the village of Roseville was 15,816. By 1960, more than 50,000 people called Roseville home. In 1958, Roseville was incorporated as a city and Arthur Waterman was elected as its first mayor. In conjunction with a fireworks display, entertainment, and other birthday festivities on June 20, Roseville officials will dedicate a new addition to the city's library, demonstrating that even as they commemorate the past, the people of the City of Roseville are committing themselves to the needs of the future. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in offering congratulations and best wishes to the residents of Roseville, Michigan, on this important occasion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to honor one of Michigan's finest lawyers, Donald E. Barris, who is celebrating his 80th birthday on June 21st. Born and raised in Detroit, Don Barris attended Detroit public schools and Wayne State University, from whose law he graduated in 1940. Don has spent his entire professional life, now approaching 60 years, in private practice in downtown Detroit. In 1968, he co-founded the firm of Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker and is its senior partner. Known throughout southeastern Michigan as a premier trial lawyer, Don has also served as a trusted legal advisor to hundreds of families and businesses. Their problems have become his problems, as he passionately advocated their causes. Using his vast knowledge of zoning and land use law, Don has provided significant services to churches, synagogues and other non-profit institutions throughout the Metropolitan Detroit area. He has been recognized by these appreciative clients for the zeal with which he has furthered their interests, often taking no compensation for his work. Don Barris has been a generous benefactor of the Wayne State University Law School. He provided the funds for a student lounge named after his late wife, Miriam, and has contributed substantial resources to expand the Law School's computer laboratory. The Donald E. Barris Trial Practice Fund was established at the Law School by his law firm to honor his legal talents and many contributions to Wayne State. It is a pleasure to recognize and honor Donald E. Barris, a great lawyer and a great humanitarian, on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from North Carolina requested 6 minutes. I would be happy to yield 6 minutes to my friend from North Carolina.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time so we can, hopefully, adopt this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment that I will be sending to the desk will change the trigger date for sanctionable activity from August 8, 1995, which is currently in the bill, to January 22, 1998. I will explain why I am seeking to do that in the next few minutes. The bill the Senate is debating requires the President to submit periodic reports on foreign persons who, on or after August 8, 1995, have provided or attempted to provide material, technology, technical assistance, or facilities that contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop or produce ballistic missiles. Those who are identified as assisting Iran's ballistic missile effort will be subject to sanctions for at least two years, preventing them from buying military equipment and technology, and controlled dual-use goods and technology, and from receiving U.S. economic aid. The bill includes two waiver provisions, one in case the President learns of new information that shows that a foreign person did not provide assistance initially included in one of the required reports, and one in case the President determines that imposing sanctions would not be in our national security interest. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I strongly support the legislation's goal, Mr. President--to stop assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program by foreign entities. I am concerned, however, about the bill's use of August 8, 1995 as the trigger date for determining behavior to be sanctioned. My amendment would change the trigger date in the bill for determining behavior to be sanctioned from August 8, 1995 to January 22, 1998. This is the date on which the then-Prime Minister of Russia, Viktor Chernomyrdin, signed a government decree to strengthen Russian export controls on dual-use items that could be used either for weapons of mass destruction or for missiles to deliver such weapons. Madam President, we need to strengthen the President's ability to apply sanctions to foreign entities--whether individuals, companies or educational institutions--that provide assistance of any kind to the current efforts of Iran to develop ballistic missiles that could threaten their neighbors. But I believe that the more appropriate trigger date for the behavior subject to sanctions is January 22, 1998 rather than August 8, 1995 for the following reasons: The United States Government has been working with the Russian Government intensely for the last few years to encourage them to stop all assistance by any entity in Russia to Iran's efforts to develop a ballistic missile. Our government has engaged the Russian Government at the highest levels--President Clinton directly to President Yeltsin-- and at numerous levels below the Presidents. Vice President Gore made this a crucial and central issue in the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, and put this on then-Prime Minister Chernomyrdin's agenda for immediate attention. In addition, the Administration appointed Ambassador Frank Wisner to work with his specially appointed Russian counterpart, Yuri Koptev, the head of the Russian Space Agency, to seek progress in stopping assistance from Russian entities to Iran's ballistic missile program. Ambassador Wisner was recently succeeded by Ambassador Robert Gallucci, the diplomat who negotiated the North Korean Agreed Framework and led UNSCOM inspection teams in ferreting out Iraqi weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War. So our government has been highly energized and motivated and they deserve credit for their efforts, which are continuing still. These efforts have met with mixed success. In some cases, the activities have stopped. In other cases, the activities have continued. And in other cases, the information is inconclusive as to whether or not the activities that the Russian Government has said they are trying to stop and which we surely want stopped, and which the world needs stopped, in fact have stopped. However, in January of this year, the Russian Government took an important step that we had been encouraging them to take for some time. On January 22, then-Prime Minister of Russia, Viktor Chernomyrdin, issued a broad decree, known as the ``catch-all'' decree, to strengthen export controls over all dual-use goods and services that could be used to proliferate either weapons of mass destruction or the missiles to deliver them. This decree states that Russian entities engaged in foreign trade ``shall refrain from export transactions involving any dual-use goods or services not subject to Russian Federation export control regulations should such entities be aware that such goods and services will be used to develop or employ nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or missile means of delivery . . .''. The decree goes on to state that ``Should Russian entities engaged in foreign trade have reason to believe that such goods and services may be used for the aforesaid purposes, they shall submit the pertinent application to the Russian Federation Governmental Commission on Export control.'' Madam President, this Russian decree is a broad and sweeping prohibition on the export of any goods and services, if there is reason to believe that those goods or services could be used to develop or employ a weapon of mass destruction or the missiles to deliver them. Our Government strongly encouraged the Russian Government to issue that decree. And of great significance, the January 22 decree is broader and stronger than the Missile Technology Control Regime. The Missile Technology Control Regime deals only with the proliferation of missile technology for certain classes of missiles. The January 22 decree is an effort by the Russian Government to strengthen controls over the export of technology, goods, and services that can lead to the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction as well as the missiles to deliver them. So this decree covers the weapons of mass destruction and their components and the materials that go into them. It is much broader than the Missile Control Technology Regime, which just relates to missiles. The Missile Technology Control Regime, to state it more correctly, covers just missiles, whereas the Chernomyrdin decree of January 22 covers the weapons of mass destruction that we are trying to preserve and protect the world from, as well as the missiles that could deliver them. This is an important step by the Russian Government. That decree, which we pleaded with them to adopt and to publish, deserves to be supported and deserves to be encouraged. My amendment uses their decree as the basis for our action--their decree--and that reinforces its effectiveness instead of ignoring its issuance. Madam President, it is not clear to me that all the activities of the Russian entities that have or could contribute to Iran's ballistic missile program would even be proscribed by the Missile Technology Control Regime that the Russians signed in August of 1995. But the January 22 decree, being much broader, would prohibit those activities because they fit under the decree's broad category of ``export transactions involving any dual use goods or services'' that ``may'' be used to develop or employ nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or the missiles to deliver them. So, summarizing the amendment, the amendment strengthens the original intent of the bill. It recognizes the efforts of the Russian Government to address the problem of assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program through the January 22, 1998, decree. By using that decree as the trigger date for behavior that is sanctioned, the bill reinforces that decree, both recognizing the action that the Russians took at our request and using the restrictions in that decree which are more comprehensive than those entailed by the Missile Technology Control Regime. Our Nation shares a common goal with Russia of trying to stop all assistance from Russian entities to Iran's missile program. Russia has taken some steps, but more steps and more cooperation are needed. I believe that if we acknowledge the efforts they have taken and encourage them to continue, we can avoid a counterproductive result. That result could make it harder for Russia to succeed in its efforts to stop such assistance. And our goal should be just that--to do what works, to do what leads to a better result. In all likelihood, if this legislation becomes law with my amendment, it will still require sanctions to be applied, because there is evidence that some Russian entities have provided assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program since January 22, 1998. Finally, I note that the bill before the Senate contains two Presidential waivers. They are there for important reasons. The more significant of the two waivers is a national security waiver which the President can use to waive the imposition of sanctions if doing so ``is essential to the national security of the United States.'' This legislation is not intended to force the President to impose a sanction if doing so would harm U.S. national security. If the President determines that it is necessary for him to waive the imposition of sanctions in the interest of national security, then under this bill he may do so. That is in the bill itself. That is not touched by my amendment. But that is why the waiver is included in the bill before us. Madam President, I believe that the sponsors of the bill have indicated support for my amendment. Senator Kyl is on the floor. I will let him speak for himself in that regard. I yield the floor. I appreciate their support.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I must note to my colleagues that the procedure that has been used here on the floor today for consideration of this conference report is outrageous. Despite the process followed here, I intend to vote for this bill, based on the representations about Michigan's share of highway funds made in the incomplete charts provided by the Conference Committee. I ask unanimous consent that those charts be placed in the Record following my statement. The best judgement I can exercise at this point is to support the apparent increases provided to my state. According to these charts, Michigan will receive an annual average of $825 million per year from the Highway Trust Fund, an increase of $310 million over the ISTEA I average. Our percentage return on the dollars distributed will rise from approximately 84% to 90.5% and is guaranteed to go no lower. And, our share of the total funds going to the states will increase from approximately 2.87% to 3.16%, close to the Senate bill's mark. If the factual matter in those charts proves to be inaccurate, I, and I am sure my donor state colleagues, will seek corrective action. Michigan and the nation are making some significant progress with the passage of this bill. We are now going to spend all or nearly all our gas tax dollars on transportation, rather than leaving them in the Highway Trust Fund. That means we are going to start addressing the serious backlog of infrastructure projects that are vital to our economy and quality of life. I understand the report contains a minimum guarantee provision similar to that in the Senate bill, though the ``guarantee'' has been reduced to a 90.5% return on dollars distributed rather than the 91% the donor states were promised. Still, this is some incremental progress for my state, but Michigan will continue to be a substantial donor state and continue sending money to the donee states. We will continue pressing at the next opportunity for more equity, particularly on transit when that title is reauthorized in two years. But, for the moment, we can declare a minor victory. While I appreciate the conferees', particularly Senator Warner's, attention to the donor states' needs, I am concerned by one particular provision. Apparently, the report includes an item that could drastically reduce the minimum guarantee funds to states if revenues increase by more than 25% over a 1998 baseline. This provision has no place in this bill, particularly since the total amount authorized and distributed by this bill is projected to rise by approximately 25% over the next six years, assuming current CBO projections. Its inclusion undermines the ``guarantee'' and the promise that the Senate conferees made to the donor states, since we could be disproportionately hurt. I intend to examine this provision closely and will work with the other donor states to change this provision if it proves harmful to us. I am pleased that the conferees have included a number of important provisions in the report, including a provision similar to one I authored in the Senate's bill enhancing local transportation officials participation in the preparation of the states' transportation improvement program. Also, the international trade corridor number 18, which includes I-69 and I-94, is designated as high priority. Ambassador Bridge access projects are made eligible for Federal funding. The State of Michigan will receive $10 million in FY99 and $13.5 million in FY2000 for buses and bus facilities in a block grant for distribution around the State. Numerous other important projects are identified all over the State, from an Intelligent Transportation System technology project in Lansing, to Monroe Rail Consolidation, to the South Beltline in Grand Rapids, to renovation and rehabilitation of the Detroit Waterfront, to upgrading 3 Mile Road in Grand Traverse County, to upgrading H-58 in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore., etc. This is not a perfect bill. But, it is another step on the long, long road toward equity. When I started in the Senate, we were getting somewhere around $.75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 ISTEA bill brought us up to approximately $.80 per dollar, and the conference report before us should get us to about $.83. Some day, Michigan taxpayers will get back 100% of the gas taxes they pay into the Highway Trust Fund in the form of better roads and bridges and well-maintained infrastructure. But, only if we keep fighting. I ask unanimous consent to have the charts printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, about one year from now, in June 1999, the independent counsel law is due to expire unless Congress acts to renew it. In the Senate, the Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is responsible for examining whether the independent counsel law ought to be reauthorized. I rise today because, as I've begun to look at the reauthorization issues, one stands out as central to the law, central to the question of reauthorization, and central to the issue of whether the independent counsel law is a tool of fairness or a weapon of politics. In a recent Law Day speech, independent counsel Kenneth Starr proclaimed that, ``No one is above the law.'' He is correct. No one is above the law--certainly not the President, who was the focus of Starr's remarks, but equally so, not an independent counsel. The question I want to discuss today is whether independent counsels are themselves complying with the law, in particular a provision at 28 U.S.C. 594(f)(1), which states that independent counsels ``shall'' comply with the ``written or other established policies of the Department of Justice.'' This is a straightforward provision. The law says ``shall,'' not ``may,'' not ``should.'' It makes compliance with established Justice Department policies mandatory, not discretionary, for every independent counsel. The only exception to this rule is where compliance with Departmental policies would be ``inconsistent with the purposes of the statute'' such as, for example, compliance with a policy requiring the permission of the Attorney General to take a specific act. Barring this exception, the law's clear general rule is that independent counsels must comply with established Justice Department policies. This provision in the law is an important one. It is a key constraint to ensure that persons who are subject to independent counsel investigations receive the same treatment as ordinary citizens--no better and no worse. It is a key safeguard against an overly zealous prosecutor. The Senate felt so strongly about this requirement that, during the law's 1994 reauthorization, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Bob Dole emphasizing that failure to follow Justice Department policies constitutes ``cause'' for removing an independent counsel from office. The final conference report on the law, while omitting the Senate provision as accurate but too limiting, said, ``refusal to follow important Department guidelines . . .--like many other circumstances-- do provide potential grounds for removing an independent counsel from office.'' Independent counsel compliance with Justice Department policies was important to the Supreme Court. In the key decision upholding the independent counsel law, Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court referred to the requirement as one of the keys to the law's constitutionality. The Court did so when determining whether the independent counsel law, ``taken as a whole, violates the principle of separation of powers by unduly interfering with the role of the Executive Branch,'' in particular the Constitutional requirement that the President, as head of the executive branch, ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. The Supreme Court stated: It is undeniable that the Act reduces the amount of control or supervision that the Attorney General and, through him, the President exercises over the investigation and prosecution of a certain class of alleged criminal activity. . . . Nonetheless, the Act does give the Attorney General several means of supervising or controlling the prosecutorial powers that may be wielded by an independent counsel. Most importantly, the Attorney General retains the power to remove the counsel for `good cause,' a power that we have already concluded provides the Executive with substantial ability to ensure that the laws are `faithfully executed' by an independent counsel. No independent counsel may be appointed without a specific request by the Attorney General, and the Attorney General's decision not to request appointment if he finds `no reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted' is committed to his unreviewable discretion. . . . In addition, the jurisdiction of the independent counsel is defined with reference to the facts submitted by the Attorney General, and once a counsel is appointed, the Act requires that the counsel abide by Justice Department policy unless it is not `possible' to do so. The Court then went on to say, in language directly relevant to this issue: ``Notwithstanding the fact that the counsel is to some degree `independent' and free from executive supervision to a greater extent than other federal prosecutors, in our view these features of the Act give the Executive Branch sufficient control over the independent counsel to ensure the President is able to perform his constitutionally assigned duties.'' The Supreme Court thus highlighted four ``features'' of the independent counsel law which enable the Attorney General to meet the constitutional requirement that the President, as head of the executive branch, ensure the faithful execution of the law. The four features identified by the Court are the Attorney General's sole authority to request appointment of an independent counsel, her authority to remove an independent counsel from office for good cause, her authority to define the scope of an independent counsel's investigation, and the requirement that independent counsels must abide by Justice Department policy. Mandatory compliance with Justice Department policies is important not only for the law to be constitutional, but also because that compliance is one of the few practical constraints on the conduct of an independent counsel. The Supreme Court has held that the special court which appoints independent counsels ``has no power to supervise or control the activities of the counsel'' it has appointed. Congress, legally empowered to oversee independent counsels, has shown little interest under the current Republican leadership in monitoring independent counsels investigating the Clinton Administration. The law does empower the Attorney General to remove an independent counsel from office for good cause, but that draconian penalty is not a practical one and has never been used. For example, if Attorney General Reno were to fire independent counsel Starr for enforcing subpoenas served on Secret Service personnel, the Republican Congress as well as the news media would have her head. The power to terminate an independent counsel, while an essential element in the law's architecture for purposes of constitutionality, is simply not, except for unusual circumstances, a practical means for limiting an independent counsel's individual prosecutorial decisions. That means a key remaining constraint on independent counsels is the legal requirement that they comply with established Justice Department policies. Yet questions have increasingly arisen about whether sitting independent counsels are acting in ways that an ordinary federal prosecutor would, or whether they are taking actions outside the established practices of the Department of Justice. A prime example is an independent counsel subpoena so troubling that the Supreme Court has agreed to review it on an expedited basis next month. This subpoena was served by independent counsel Starr on a private attorney who, in 1993, met with Vincent Foster nine days before his suicide to discuss representing him during inquiries into the White House travel office. The Starr subpoena demands the notes taken by the attorney during that meeting, on the ground that the attorney-client relationship dissolved upon Mr. Foster's death. The U.S. Attorney Manual states that the Justice Department, ``as a matter of policy will respect bona fide attorney-client relationships, wherever possible, consistent with its law enforcement responsibilities and duties.'' But instead of respecting the bona fide attorney-client relationship between Mr. Foster and his attorney, Starr asserted a legal position that the Justice Department--in over one hundred years of criminal prosecution--has never taken. As Starr admits in a Supreme Court filing, the Foster case ``is the first federal decision addressing the question . . . of whether attorney-client privilege fully survives the client's death.'' A federal trial judge asked to enforce the Starr subpoena struck it down for violating attorney-client confidentiality, but an appeals court, in a 2-1 decision over a strong dissent, reversed. The dissenting judge wrote that the Starr subpoena is contrary to the law in all 50 states, the Supreme Court's advisory committee, and model codes of evidence. He characterized the Starr subpoena as striking ``a fundamental blow to the attorney-client privilege.'' An independent counsel stretching that far is assuming the authority of the Justice Department to set legal policy for the United States. Required compliance with Departmental policies not only helps ensure that persons who are subjects of independent counsel investigations receive the same treatment as ordinary citizens, but also guards against an independent counsel's misuse of the authority to represent the United States. Developing federal legal policy is the province of the Justice Department, which is institutionally motivated and equipped to consider competing public policies, constitutional values, and the long-term health of the American legal system. It is not the province of an independent counsel who has a narrow mandate and operates without accountability for legal positions that may reverberate throughout the federal criminal justice system. Yet in the Foster matter, we have an independent counsel arguing a dramatically new position, that the attorney-client privilege disappears at death, without the Justice Department's ever determining whether that is a suitable position for the United States to take. And the prosecutorial stretch illustrated by the issuance of the Foster subpoena is not the only instance in which an independent counsel appears to have stretched his authority. Just last week, over the strenuous objection of the Justice Department and for the first time in the nation's history, Starr asked a federal court to force Secret Service personnel to disclose how they operate and what they have observed of the President in the course of protecting him. No federal prosecutor has ever before asked a court to compel such testimony from a Secret Service agent, according to the Justice Department. But Starr is undeterred by the opposition of both the Justice Department and Secret Service. Discounting arguments regarding the safety of the presidency and effective operation of Secret Service personnel, Starr has assumed the role of policymaker. In so doing, he has issued subpoenas which are not only unprecedented, but also, judging from the opposition of the Justice Department, in violation of Justice Department policy and in violation of Mr. Starr's obligation to comply with Justice Department policy. There's more. The Department of Justice has carefully constructed policies determining when government attorneys may contact possible targets of prosecution without the knowledge and consent of their attorney. These policies are intended to protect every citizen's right to legal counsel in the criminal justice arena. In a Departmental regulation, 28 CFR 77.8, the Justice Department explicitly prohibits federal prosecutors from offering an immunity deal to a target without the consent of the target's legal counsel. Yet independent counsel Starr's staff reportedly confronted Monica Lewinsky, in the first contact they had with her, at a shopping mall outside the presence of her counsel for the express purpose of offering her an immunity deal. Indeed, it has been alleged that the independent counsel's office made the immunity deal contingent upon her NOT contacting her counsel. The press has reported that the judge supervising independent counsel Starr's grand jury proceedings issued a sealed opinion expressing concern about the actions of the independent counsel in this matter and indicating she may refer the matter to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility which is authorized to examine alleged violations of the rules prohibiting contact with a represented person. There's more. Independent counsel Starr issued subpoenas to force two bookstores to disclose all purchases by Monica Lewinsky over a 2 year period. The bookstores, supported by the publishing and bookselling communities, the American Library Association and others, moved to quash the subpoenas. Ruling that the subpoenas implicate the First Amendment, the presiding judge required Starr to provide additional justification for the subpoenas. The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression has stated that ``in the long experience'' of their members, these subpoenas are ``unprecedented'' in their breadth and ``threaten free speech by making people afraid that the government will find out what they are reading.'' Then there are the subpoenas Starr has issued to news organizations to obtain nonpublic information from their news gathering efforts. Long-standing Justice Department regulations caution federal prosecutors against such subpoenas in order to safeguard freedom of the press. The regulations require trying elsewhere for the information, negotiating requests for information first, and, in a final provision that a court has found falls within the exception to the compliance requirement, obtaining the Attorney General's permission prior to issuing a subpoena. Despite the established policy discouraging media subpoenas, independent counsel Starr and independent counsel Donald Smaltz have issued subpoenas to news organizations on several occasions. When ABC News objected to one such subpoena, Starr stated in a court pleading that the Justice regulations ``do not govern an Independent Counsel, who, by statutory design, operates for the most part outside the Department of Justice.'' Then there are the subpoenas Starr issued calling a White House aide before the grand jury to question him about his communications with the media and calling another White House aide before the grand jury to question him about his communications with his local Democratic party. In both cases, Starr created the appearance of using the grand jury to silence or intimidate critics of his office--surely not an established practice of the Justice Department. Then there is the subpoena to Monica Lewinsky's mother despite a stated policy in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual that, ``the Department will ordinarily avoid seeking to compel the testimony of a witness who is a close family relative of . . . the person upon whose conduct grand jury scrutiny is focusing.'' The list goes on. The key question, here, is whether the actions taken by Starr were in compliance with established Justice Department policies or whether they were actions that no ordinary federal prosecutor would take. The test, by the way, is not whether a judge would uphold the action in a court of law--prosecutorial conduct not in accordance with Justice policies may still be legal. The proper test is not whether the prosecutor's action is legal, but whether it is the type of action that the Justice Department has determined represents what federal prosecutors ought to be doing. A federal prosecutor may be legally able to subpoena a target's mother, but should he? A federal prosecutor may be legally able to subpoena a Secret Service agent, but should he? A federal prosecutor may be legally able to offer immunity to a target without telling her attorney, but should he? A federal prosecutor may be legally able to subpoena the media's nonpublic information, but should he? Justice Department policy says, in most cases, he should not. Such policies raise serious questions as to whether independent counsel Starr is meeting his legal obligation to comply with Justice Department policies. Starr is not, by the way, the only independent counsel to raise these concerns. Independent counsel Smaltz, appointed to determine whether then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy violated criminal laws, is another example. One key issue in this area involves the role that courts play in enforcing independent counsel compliance with Justice Department policies, as mandated by statute. To date, several courts have held that criminal defendants lack standing to enforce such compliance and have declined to examine the substance of their claims. One judge handling a prosecution by independent counsel Smaltz went further, all but reading the requirement to comply with Justice Department policies out of the law. The case involved Ronald Blackley, one time chief of staff to Secretary Espy. Independent counsel Smaltz charged Blackley, among other crimes, with making false statements on a financial disclosure form. Blackley moved for dismissal, in part by citing section 9-85A.304 of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual which he said prohibited: prosecuting alleged violations of financial disclosure requirements under 18 U.S.C. 1001 ``unless a nondisclosure conceals significant wrongdoing.'' . . . [T]here is no allegation of any underlying wrongdoing. . . . We have found no case where an individual filer has been criminally prosecuted in a situation similar to this one. In a published decision, United States v. Blackley, 986 F. Supp. 607 (1997), the judge held the following: It undeniable that Congress's addition of section 594(f) to the Independent Counsel statute in 1982 created somewhat of a paradox between that provision's purpose and the rationale underlying the overall Independent Counsel framework. On the one hand, through section 594(f)(1), Congress is ensuring that there are not two different standards of justice depending on the prosecutor; that ``treatment of officials is equal to that given to ordinary citizens under similar circumstances.'' . . . To prevent against public officials being subject to potentially capricious prosecutorial conduct, an Independent Counsel needs to be tethered to some quantifiable standard, and the Department of Justice policy guidelines provide arguably the most complete, detailed and time-tested standards available. Furthermore . . . adherence to the executive branch's established prosecutorial guidelines helps to guard against constitutional separation- of-powers challenges to the Independent Counsel statute. . . . On the other hand, if an Independent Counsel is supposed to operate as nothing more than the identical twin of the Department of Justice, with no permissible variance in prosecutorial discretion, then the need for the Independent Counsel structure becomes highly questionable. . . . For the Independent Counsel to play a meaningful role, he or she is necessarily expected to act in a manner different from, and sometimes at odds with, the Department of Justice. . . . Therefore, the Independent Counsel may prosecute this case, even if said prosecution is contrary to the general prosecutorial policies of DOJ. . . . Potential criminal ethical violations that may be too small to concern the Department of Justice are nonetheless properly within the purview of the Independent Counsel because the Independent Counsel is, in a sense, charged with the responsibility of ensuring that public officials have maintained the highest standards of ethical conduct. The court then upheld the indictment of Blackley, ruling that it was irrelevant whether or not the charge in question complied with Justice Department policy. Contrary to the court's ruling, however, Congress has never charged independent counsels with ethics enforcement. Independent counsels are federal prosecutors required to act in accordance with established Justice Department policies. The Blackley decision misreads both the law and the legislative history, not only by expanding the mission of independent counsels beyond criminal law into ethics enforcement, but also in essentially reading out of the statute the requirement that independent counsels comply with Justice Department policies. The Blackley decision is now on appeal. It brings legal focus to the issue of independent counsel compliance with established Justice Department policies--its importance to the law and the question of how to enforce it. The Supreme Court stated the following in a 1935 case about prosecutorial misconduct, Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78: The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. . . . He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. This language applies with equal force to an independent counsel, and mandatory compliance with established Justice Department policies is a means to that end. As the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General is responsible for ensuring that ``no one is above the law.'' The law requires independent counsel compliance with established Justice Department policies. Where there is evidence that independent counsels are not complying with Justice Department policies, the Attorney General has a legal obligation to determine if that is so and, if so, to take whatever action is appropriate to obtain independent counsel compliance. In light of court rulings that persons who are the victims of independent counsel noncompliance lack standing to contest the independent counsel's actions in this area, no one other than the Attorney General has the responsibility and the capability to enforce independent counsel compliance with the law. If the Attorney General does not act, we need to understand why. If the reason is that the Attorney General feels she has insufficient statutory authority to obtain independent counsel compliance with Justice Department policies, we need to clarify the statute. If the reason is not the wording of the law, but politics that makes it impossible for the Attorney General to insist on compliance, we need to design new enforcement mechanisms which are more politically feasible. Stronger enforcement mechanisms could include, for example, amending the law to require an independent counsel to obtain from the Attorney General a certification of compliance with Justice Department policies before seeking court enforcement of a subpoena or filing an appeal of a question of law, or adding a provision giving affected persons legal standing in court to force independent counsel compliance with Justice Department policies. The requirement for compliance with Justice Department policies is central to the law's constitutionality and fairness. The Attorney General and the Attorney General alone can enforce it. Since an independent counsel is not above the law, the Attorney General must enforce Section 594(f), which is the law of the land and essential to the independent counsel law's constitutionality and purpose.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the University of Michigan hockey team on their 1998 NCAA Championship--The Wolverines' second hockey title in three years. On Saturday, April 4th, the Michigan hockey team defeated Boston College (3-2) in overtime for the championship. This is a remarkable achievement for a team which lost nine senior players from last year's team, including the Hobey Baker trophy winner and 5 players who each scored 20 or more goals in the season. The 1997-98 Michigan team featured 10 freshmen, one of whom scored two goals in the final game, and another who scored the winning goal in overtime in the championship game. When the 1997-98 season started, it was expected to be a rebuilding year for the Wolverines. The young team faced a difficult season against some of the toughest teams in the nation. Instead, the Michigan team earned a 34-11-1 record, seizing every chance to display their athleticism, sportsmanship, teamwork, and perseverance. The University of Michigan ice hockey players have always been among the ``leaders and best.'' As the Wolverines celebrate this year's victory, they also commemorate the anniversary of their first NCAA title fifty years ago, when the tournament began. In the last 50 years, the Wolverines have brought nine championship titles back to Ann Arbor, making them the winningest team in NCAA men's ice hockey history. The ``Victors'' are indebted to the strong leadership they have from Head Coach Red Berenson and players, Captain Matt Herr and Assistant Captains Bill Muckalt and Marty Turco. These three seniors, along with Chris Fox and Gregg Malicke, advanced to the Final Four four seasons in a row. In addition, senior Bill Muckalt was named a Hobey Baker award candidate and All-American player, and senior goaltender Marty Turco finished his college career with one of the most impressive records in college hockey. The goalie's four years at Michigan gave him a record of 127 career victories and nine victories in NCAA elimination games, making him the winningest goaltender in NCAA tournament history. Turco was also selected most valuable player in the Final Four after stopping 28 shots in the championship game. I extend my best wishes to the University of Michigan Men's Ice Hockey Team on a tremendous season and the 1998 NCAA Championship--Go Blue!

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Douglas C. Holbrook, who will be retiring from his position as Secretary-Treasurer of the American Postal Workers Union in November, 1998. Mr. Holbrook is being recognized for his service to the men and women of the American Postal Workers Union at their 14th Biennial National Convention, which will take place in my home town of Detroit, Michigan, from July 20-24, 1998. Douglas Holbrook was born and attended high school in Virginia, and moved to Michigan to study labor relations and administration at Wayne State University in Detroit. While in Detroit, Mr. Holbrook began his career with the U.S. Postal Service as a part-time clerk. His abilities were quickly recognized by his fellow employees, and he began his distinguished career in labor relations with the Detroit District Area Local. After serving as Trustee, Editor of the Detroit Postal Worker and Vice President, he was elected President of the District Local in 1966. Mr. Holbrook served in this position until being chosen to fill the unexpired term of his predecessor as Secretary-Treasurer of the American Postal Workers Union. The American Postal Workers Union is the largest union of postal workers in the world. Under the steady and determined leadership of Mr. Holbrook, APWU has truly been a powerful force for workers rights, fair pay and a safe workplace. I know that he will be missed by his colleagues and by postal workers from every corner of the country. Mr. President, I know my colleagues join me in expressing appreciation to Douglas Holbrook for his distinguished service to our nation's postal workers, and in wishing him well in his upcoming retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I again commend my friend, the Senator from Arkansas, on this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I ask unanimous consent I be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized for 5 minutes at this time and then the Senator from California regain recognition.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is also the final defense authorization bill for three other members of our committee--Senators Glenn, Coats and Kempthorne. They will be leaving us this year, also through their choice. We will miss them keenly. They have all made tremendous contributions to the work of the Armed Services Committee and to the national security of our country. Sometimes their ways were similar and sometimes they were different, but we are grateful for their contributions. I wanted to note that as we get to work on the defense authorization bill. The bill that we bring to the floor this morning is the product of several months of hard work by the Armed Services Committee. It is a large and complicated bill that could not have been produced without the dedicated effort of our chairman, the other members of our committee and our staffs. I join Senator Thurmond in thanking our staffs for their work. While I don't agree with everything in this bill--none of us do or ever can in a bill this big and complicated--I think it will improve the quality of life for the men and women in uniform and for their families. It will continue the process of modernization of our Armed Forces to meet the threats of the future. Senator Thurmond has already summarized the provisions of the bill. I will just highlight a few provisions that will make a significant contribution to the national defense and to our men and women in uniform. The bill contains a 3.1 percent pay raise for military personnel and authorizes a number of bonuses to enhance our ability to recruit and retain quality men and women for our armed services. The bill would authorize three health care demonstration projects that would address concerns about gaps in the military health care system by requiring the Department of Defense to provide health care to retired military personnel and their families who are over 65 and Medicare-eligible. The bill contains a bipartisan Defense Commercial Pricing Management Improvement Act, which would require the Department to address management problems in sole-source buying practices. The bill would provide funding for the U.S.-Canada environmental clean-up agreement, and for a new $24 million initiative for the development of pollution prevention technology. Finally, the bill includes a series of other provisions that are designed to assist the Secretary of Defense in his effort to streamline our defense infrastructure and improve the Department's so-called ``tooth-to-tail'' ratio. These provisions would require reductions in DOD headquarters staff; extend current personnel authorities available to the Department to assist in downsizing; encourage public-private competition in the provision of support services; require improvements in the Department's inventory management and financial management systems; enable the Department to undertake needed reforms in travel management and the movement of household goods; and require the Department to streamline its test and evaluation infrastructure. Mr. President, the committee was presented with a dilemma on the Air Force's F-22 fighter program. Although there is broad support for achieving the revolutionary capability the F-22 program promises, a number of us remain concerned about the degree of overlap between development, testing, and production in the program. Four years ago, we expected that 27 percent of the flight testing hours would have been completed before the Air Force signed a contract for the first production aircraft. Last year, that number had fallen to 14 percent. This year, the committee was faced with the Air Force's plan of signing a production contract with only four percent of the flight testing completed. The bill would address this problem by making the long-lead funding for the six F-22 aircraft in FY 2000 contingent upon certifications by the Secretary of the Air Force that: (1) adequate flight testing has been conducted to address technical risk in the program; and (2) the financial benefits of going forward with the program exceed the financial risks. I am also pleased that the bill contains a provision to encourage and facilitate organ donation by service men and women. Organ donation represents, in my view, one of the most remarkable success stories in the history of medicine. Over the past several years, the Department of Defense has made some strides in increasing the awareness among service members of the importance of organ donation. With our encouragement, DOD has included organ donation decisions in their automated medical databases, and established policies that give service members regular opportunities to state a desire to become organ donors upon their deaths. In an effort to enhance the value of these initiatives, the bill provides the framework in which DOD will provide each new recruit and officer candidate information about organ donation during their initial weeks of training, and will include organ donation procedures in the training of medical personnel and in the development of medical equipment and logistical systems. This initiative is likely to have a vital impact on the survival of countless individuals who will, one day, benefit from organs donated by service men and women. From the beginning of the year, Secretary Cohen and the Joints Chiefs of Staff have stressed three things that they would like to achieve in this bill: First, they have requested authority to close excess military bases in order to fund their modernization priorities in the next decade; Second, they have urged us not to undermine military training and readiness by reducing operations and maintenance budgets; and Third, they have urged us to provide the necessary funding to support U.S. military operations in Bosnia during FY 1999 in a manner that does not cut into current levels of DOD funding. I would say that the committee has achieved roughly one and a half of these three goals. First, the bill before us would authorize $1.9 billion for continued U.S. military operations in Bosnia, in the manner requested by the Department. I am sure that many Members will want to be heard on this subject as we debate this bill. At the appropriate time I intend to offer my own amendment, which would ensure that the President reports to the Congress on progress toward achieving benchmarks toward implementation of the Dayton Accord with an exit strategy and that the Congress has an opportunity to vote on the continued presence of U.S. ground combat forces in Bosnia beyond June 30, 1999. Second, the Armed Services Committee did a reasonable job of funding training and readiness, given the budgetary constraints under which we were operating. Overall, the bill would reduce operations and maintenance funding by roughly $300 million, but these cuts would be achieved through reductions for fuel savings, foreign currency fluctuations, and civilian underexecution--which, if DOD's and CBO's predictions prove right, should not have a significant negative impact on military training and readiness. On the other hand, the Secretary has asked us not to cut operations and maintenance accounts at all, because any cuts to these accounts pose some risk of a negative impact on training and readiness. We have been hearing complaints for several years now that the Administration has not provided adequate funding for military training and readiness. If we are not able to increase the level of O&M funding in conference, the cuts in this bill mean that Congress must share responsibility with the Department of Defense for any training and readiness problems resulting from O&M funding shortfalls that DOD may experience in the next year. On the third point, I am deeply disappointed that the Armed Services Committee has again filed to authorize a new base closure round, as requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Secretary's Report on Base Closures from Secretary Cohen contains almost 1,800 pages of backup material. It is responsive to those who said last year that we need a thorough analysis before we can reach a decision on the need for more base closures. The Report reaffirms that DOD still has more bases than it needs. From 1989 to 1997, DOD reduced total active duty military endstrength by 32 percent, a figure that will grow to 36 percent by 2003. Even after 4 base closure rounds, the reduction in DOD's base structure in the United States has been reduced only 21 percent. DOD's analysis concluded that DOD has about 23 percent excess capacity in its current base structure. For example, by 2003: The Army will have reduced the personnel at its classroom training commands by 43 percent, while classroom space will have been reduced by only 7 percent. The Air Force will have reduced the number of fighters and other small aircraft by 53 percent since 1989, while the base structure for those aircraft will be only 35 percent smaller. The Navy will have 33 percent more hangars for its aircraft than it requires. Secretary Cohen's report also documents the substantial savings that have been achieved from past base closure rounds. Between 1990 and 2001, DOD estimates that BRAC actions will produce a total of $13.5 billion in net savings. After 2001, when all of the BRAC actions must be completed, steady state savings will be $5.6 billion per year. Based on the savings from the first four BRAC rounds, 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 by studying to death the question of savings from previous rounds. In his report on base closures last month, Secretary Cohen stated: ``More than any other initiative we can take today, BRAC will shape the quality and strength of the forces protecting America in the 21st century.'' General Shelton told our committee: ``I strongly support additional base closures. Without them we will not leave our successors the warfighting dominance of today's force.'' Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated: This is more than about budgeting. It's about protecting American interests, American citizens, American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We owe them the best force we can achieve. Reducing excess infrastructure will help take us there and is clearly a military necessity. Mr. President, closing bases is a painful process. I know that as well as anyone. All three Air Force bases in my state have been closed, and we are still working to overcome the economic blow to those communities. We have heard a lot of complaints in the last year about inadequate funds for modernization or for readiness. I am sure that we will hear more such complaints in the next year. But we don't have much standing to be critical of DOD for underfunding important defense needs if we don't allow them to do what Secretary Cohen and the Chiefs have repeatedly said they need to do--close unneeded bases. There are several other issues in the bill that concern me. I am disappointed by the committee's cuts in the Department of Energy's stockpile stewardship program, which Secretary Pena says will have a real and dramatic impact on our ability to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile and undermine confidence in our nuclear deterrent. I am disappointed by the cuts we have made in the chemical demilitarization program, which may make it impossible for the United States to comply with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. And I am disappointed that we have funded several weapons systems for which the Department of Defense says that it has no current need. I look forward to amendments that will improve the bill in these and other areas in the course of our debate. Mr. President, I know that there will be some vigorous debate on this bill, and I hope Senators will come to the floor and offer their amendments so that we can complete Senate action on the bill in a timely manner then go to conference with the House. I must leave here for perhaps a half hour to an hour. I note that Senator Cleland will be floor managing the bill for this side of the aisle. This is an important day for us. I know it is meaningful for him, but it is an important day for us and for this institution, and for this country to note that Senator Cleland, who is truly a hero for all of us, is now managing this bill. I can't think of anyone I would rather have do that, anyone in whom I have greater confidence to protect this Nation's interest, as he always has, than Senator Cleland. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2399 (Purpose: To increase the amount for classified programs by $275,000,000, and to offset the increase by reducing the amount for Air Force procurement for the Advance Medium Air-to-Air Missile System program by $21,058,000, and by reducing the amount for Defense-wide research, development, test, and evaluation for engineering and manufacturing development under the Theater High Area Defense program by $253,942,000)