Mike Levin

Our having defenses to the Soviets means that instead of getting rid of their offensive weapons, they will need more. That is not what I am saying, though. That is what General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry are saying, far more…

These arms reduction treaties, starting with the ABM Treaty, which is limiting arms, and then going to START I and START II--START II is before us now, supported by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--these have been…

The language we are going to analyze, that is in this bill, directly confronts the ABM Treaty and says it is the policy of the United States--and these are the words of the bill--no longer to abide by the ABM Treaty. It does it in a number…

The most dangerous portion of this bill, in my view, is its head-on assault on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This is not a subtle issue. This is not an issue of interpretation. That is a frontal, head-on assault which says that it is…

I do think we have to consider who shot whom and who is raping whom. In a word, we have to step up to Serbian aggression. While there is a clear difference of opinion in our Nation let me ask this: Would the Bosnian Serbs prefer this…

The difference though again is that the Senator's bill has new language which has not interpreted failure to comply whereas the language, as the Senator points to in our bill, has been interpreted in a way which is significantly narrower…

I am referring here though now to the interpretation of section 706. You see, that has been interpreted. It has been interpreted as I just read. The language of the Senator from Louisiana has not so been interpreted yet, and is open to a…

I am wondering, relevant to the answer that I gave the Senator, whether or not the Senator is willing to incorporate that narrowing language?

I believe that is correct. Under that section, the courts have adopted the following standard, that the procedural errors ``were so serious and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there is a substantial likelihood…

I think the difference is in the preceding language. The difference is in the preceding language in Glenn-Chafee which, if an analysis assessment had been performed, the courts shall review to determine whether the analysis or assessment…

Because the Justice Department has set forth the ambiguity in the words ``failure to comply.'' The question is whether or not those words refer to the procedural irregularities which could occur in the cost-benefit analysis or in the risk…

The Senator raises a question. If there are 823 lives saved, according to a cost-benefit analysis, for the cost of $1 million, is that quantified or not quantified?

Except that is limited by the Senator's language in subsection (b). When it comes to the least costly alternative, the Senator does not say ``benefit'' which is, in fact, defined somewhere else. It is limited to nonquantifiable benefit…

Since the Senator asked and my colleagues continue to ask that question, let me try to answer that question: It is because we have repeatedly, over and over again, said that if the benefits to health and safety or the environment are…

In the 1994 report of the National Academy of Sciences--that report entitled ``Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment''--they made a number of specific recommendations to the EPA where they might improve policies, practices, and methods…

Again I commend Senator Hatch. I know he will find strong bipartisan support for this initiative he is taking. There is a bipartisan determination to go root out this kind of racism in America. Again, I think he will find very strong…

Mr. President, a number of the problems which I saw in this amendment have been corrected. There still remains a problem with it, but I intend to vote for this amendment, and I want to thank the Senator from Texas for introducing it. It is…

What is behind the Republicans' wild swings at Medicare? In part it is to finance a tax cut for the privileged few, but it is also a reflection of a basic Republican dislike of Medicare. Words can be very meaningful, and look at what the…

It is our intent that our language address the ambiguity that we and many others perceive in the bill without creating any other ambiguity. We will show it to the Senator before we offer it.

Could be the double-hulled tanker. I am not sure what that is based on. We made a decision on that and you do not intend that anything in this bill is intended to supersede it. The problem is, because of the ambiguity we pointed out, it…

Since there is an ambiguity here at a minimum, I think a fair reading would be since the word is ``nonquantifiable'' and my hypothetical is very quantifiable, at least reasonably interpreted, although the Senator from Louisiana does not…

Under the provision of this bill, you must use the least costly alternative to get to the goals set by Congress. The least costly alternative is to get to 10. Under my hypothetical, for a very slight additional cost, you can get to 6…

Now, the agency does a cost-benefit analysis and it finds that for a few dollars extra it can get to 6. After 6 parts per trillion, it becomes so costly it probably is not worth it. My question is, this is highly quantifiable. We know…

No. Using my example, the statute says you have got to get to at least 10 parts per trillion reduction. That is the toxic substance. We want as a minimum to get to 10 parts per trillion.

On that issue, to pursue it, can you move to a more costly program if the benefits are quantifiable?