Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. You have to set aside the Lautenberg amendment temporarily. Amendment No. 3192

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3209

Mr. LEVIN. I offer an amendment requested by Mr. Reed of Rhode Island as a technical clarification to section 1005 of S. 2400 to clarify the types of recreational programs that can be supported by this section.

Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, I offer an amendment that would authorize a land exchange between the Navy and the State of Maryland at Patuxent River Naval Air Station.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment 3158

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3215

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3211

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a thank-you from me for his nice comments.

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3212

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the Project Bioshield legislation. This bill will make an important contribution to our Nation's preparedness by authorizing the expenditure of $5.6 billion from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2013 for the procurement of biomedical countermeasures for inclusion in a Strategic National Stockpile. Project Bioshield will bolster the Nation's ability to provide protections and countermeasures against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear agents that may be used in a terrorist attack. It includes provisions to facilitate research and development of biomedical countermeasures by the National Institutes of Health; to provide for procurement of needed countermeasures through a special reserve fund and to authorize, under limited circumstances, the emergency use of medical products that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. I am pleased that the final version of the bill requires that any bioshield contract be awarded pursuant to full and open competition unless the Secretary determines that the mission of the bioshield program would be seriously impaired by this requirement. This provision ensures that the bioshield program, like other Federal programs, will be subject to governmentwide competition requirements. I am also pleased that the final version of the bill will not make it more likely that military personnel will be required to take unapproved products without their consent. This subject has been addressed in an appropriate manner in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which is being debated on the Senate floor right now. This legislation will help to better prepare our Nation and bolster our critical infrastructure to help us deal effectively with terrorist attacks. The mailing of anthrax and ricin tainted letters to Capitol Hill and other locations in 2001 and 2004, respectively, have highlighted our Nation's weaknesses in this area of biodefense. Now Project Bioshield will help give us the tools we need to develop appropriate countermeasures and combat bioterrorism more effectively.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the understanding of the managers of this bill with regard to the restriction in section 319F-2(c)(9), as amended by the Gregg-Kennedy amendment, on the use of Bioshield funds from paying the costs for purchase of vaccines under procurement contracts entered into before the date of enactment. Is it the understanding of the bill's managers that this restriction would not apply to the purchase of additional doses of vaccines otherwise qualifying as security countermeasures if they are acquired under either new contracts or modifications to existing contracts to increase the numbers of doses to be procured for the Strategic National Stockpile?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment of Senator Lott and Senator Dorgan. The first argument they make is that we ought to look first at overseas bases before we have our commission next year look at the domestic bases. I agree with that. I think it does make more sense to look at the overseas bases before we look at ours, and that is exactly what we provided for by law. We have created a commission which will look at overseas bases and report back to the Department of Defense and to the Nation by the end of this year. That commission has now met and I believe they had their first meeting, in fact, this month and they have already scheduled a second meeting. In terms of the argument that we should surely look at these bases all around the world before the commission which will be appointed next year looks at domestic bases, I think the argument is a good one, and we have provided for that argument. The Global Posture Review, which is a requirement that the Department of Defense is now meeting, which is to see whether our forces are properly deployed around the world in order of addressing where the likely hotspots are, that Global Posture Review is also going to be completed this year. So there is a logic, there is a chronology, which meets the supporters' argument, the proponents of the amendment of Senator Lott, that there is a sequence which should be followed. We should first look at the overseas facilities before looking at ours is a sequence which we now have placed in law for many years. This, of course, has been in law and is now unfolding, as it was projected to unfold by law. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and all of the chiefs have written us a letter. That letter has been printed in the Record. It is dated May 18, but I just quote from it to emphasize the importance of going through with a base realignment and closure round as authorized in the year 2001, and the importance to our uniformed military leadership. The letter is addressed to Chairman Warner. It says: We are writing this letter to emphasize our continued and unequivocal support for conducting a 2005 round of base realignment and closure (BRAC), as authorized by the Congress. The convergence of ongoing strategy and overseas basing actions, the transformational direction in all the services and force structure changes together afford us a once-in-a- generation opportunity to truly transform the Department's combat capability in an enduring way. A delay of this BRAC round, or a modification of the legislation that limits the Department's flexibility to execute it, will seriously undermine our ability to fundamentally reconfigure our infrastructure to best support the transformation of our forces to meet the security challenges we face now and will continue to face for the foreseeable future. There is transformation going on. We are shifting to meet new threats--the best that we can foresee them. It has been argued that you can't perfectly foresee future threats. That is true. But that is surely no argument for not attempting to make the assessments in a thorough way, in a conscientious way, and then to structure your forces and to structure your infrastructure in a way that will most readily and most effectively meet those projected threats. How can we reconfigure our military, which I think everybody recognizes is necessary in a new world of new threats, if we freeze into place the infrastructure that we have in this country? Somehow or other, the argument is made that because there are changes in the world, therefore we should not change, we should not allow our structures here to change. The opposite, it seems to me, is the case. The world has changed and changed dramatically, and the threats are very different. Surely we should not be frozen into our current structures here or around the world in response to a changing threat environment. So the more we point out, and accurately so, and the more we argue how different the threats are following 9/11, it seems to me the more we should be willing to allow a process to work which first looks at our structures, our infrastructure, our base structure around the world, and then next year, after the foreign structures are looked at and the foreign bases are looked at, then our base-closing commission will look at the domestic bases. I believe one of the Senators who spoke argued that the vote in 2001 came prior to 9/11 and that everything has changed since then. According to the information I have, our vote took place on September 25, 2001, 2 weeks after 9/11, the vote to sustain the title in the bill which authorized an additional round of base realignments and closures. I believe that vote--maybe my records are wrong here--took place after 9/11 and not before 9/11. We also had a vote last year as to whether we should not proceed with another round of base closings. That vote last year also surely came after 9/11. We went through the same arguments, essentially, on our vote last year, whether the world has changed as to whether there are really savings that are created by the closing of bases. On the savings point, I would simply give the best information available to us relative thereto. We have talked about the necessary closing of and realigning of bases in order to meet the new threats. But there is also a significant savings issue here as well. Here quoting from the Department of Defense report of March 2004, which we required, on page 55, this is the conclusion: The four prior rounds of base realignments and closures have generated significant savings for the Department of Defense. Through fiscal year 2001, the end of the four prior rounds' implementation period, the Department had accumulated net savings of about $17 billion over BRAC implementation costs from the closure and realignment actions approved in those four rounds. Then the report goes on to say that: These BRAC-created savings continue, and the Department realizes recurring savings of almost $7 billion each year. These savings were realized even after environmental restoration funding was processed through BRAC accounts. So the savings here are real. The necessity of closing unnecessary bases in order to meet new threats is real. It seems to me, as difficult as it is for all of us to confront the reality that some of our bases are in excess and do not meet the current threat situation, that we ought to proceed. The amendment as written would require a new act on the part of Congress in order to restore a round of base closing. This is not a situation where the base closing is automatically going to take place. The commission would be allowed to recommend base closings in a future year. According to this amendment, it would require a subsequent act of Congress in order to restore a round of base closings in order to have a commission which would have the power to make those recommendations, both to the executive branch and to the Congress. So this is not just simply a matter of delay, even though I think that would be a serious mistake. This is a matter of eliminating the round of base closings which is scheduled unless there is a subsequent enactment by Congress of a bill which would set up a round of base closing in the year 2007. If we delay it or if we take the action that is proposed--technically more than a delay but actually a repeal in the absence of, subsequently, Congressional legislation--we will be leaving the bases in this country in limbo. It is hard enough. We all have bases in our States. It is difficult enough for our bases to go through this process, and we know that. We have all suffered some pain, some States more than others--my State a lot. But there is still a lot of real concern about the existing bases we do have in our State. But to simply say we are going to leave you in limbo for a few more years and then see whether Congress in 2007 adopts another round it seems to me is the worst of all worlds for everybody. We have a need to realign bases. We have new threats. We have costs we cannot afford. It seems to me we have a process in place, which is a logical process looking first at the bases overseas, doing that this year through a Global Posture Review and through a report of a commission which specifically has been placed by law in operation to look at foreign bases, and then next year, according to a law which we passed in 2001, the next President, whether it is President Bush or whether it is President Kerry, would then appoint a commission that would look, in an objective way, at all of the bases, having before it the work of the commission which is looking at the foreign bases this year and having before it the Global Posture Review, which is being now adopted by the Department of Defense. I want to close with another paragraph from this letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Again, this was signed by every one of the Chiefs. It reads, in the second paragraph, as follows: A comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete. The continued concentration of forces in Cold War locations highlights the need for a global repositioning to locations that best support our strategic goals. In order to ensure that the Department examines its entire infrastructure, the rationalization of our domestic infrastructure as conducted by the BRAC process must closely follow the Global Posture Review. In other words, we have a Global Posture Review which is being adopted this year, and for the BRAC process to be delayed or to be rendered uncertain at least until the year 2007 means there will be a disconnect between the Global Posture Review, which looks at our force structure around the world, a disconnect between that and the decision as to which bases to close. Our chiefs say both efforts are necessary. Both efforts are necessary--the Global Posture Review as well as a BRAC process--for a genuine capabilities-based infrastructure rationalization and for further transformation of our war-fighting capabilities. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. No objection.

Mr. LEVIN. As I understand, Senator Domenici--and I was distracted-- asked he be allowed to offer the amendment. As I understand it, there has been no agreement to the amendment, the time agreement on the amendment. The manager is asking the Senator from New Mexico would he now withhold that amendment so we can sort this out.

Mr. LEVIN. An hour and a half equally divided.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there has been a number of votes on BRAC. Just to clarify, it was not just that the Congress voted to keep a BRAC process going after 9/11; the Senate itself, on September 25, 2001, voted to table an amendment which struck the BRAC title. That was after 9/11. It was the Senate itself that voted on that. Secondly, the point about first things first, it seems to me, is right. We ought to consider overseas bases first. That is why we created a commission last year in the 2004 appropriations bill, the MILCON appropriations bill. We appointed the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structures of the United States. That commission is meeting now. That commission is going to make a report this year. First things first, that is exactly what we are doing with that commission--reporting first on overseas structures. The real question is whether we get to the second thing. This amendment kills BRAC. I think the sponsors have clarified it. This kills BRAC unless there is, as the Senator from Virginia points out, a vote in 2005 to have a BRAC process. That will be the vote that all of the lobbyists will be pointing to. Every one of our States has bases. A lot of those bases are nervous. They have hired people to lobby us. Now the focus will be on a 2005 vote. So the cost to the communities to keep this pot boiling will continue. The communities will be left in limbo because these bases' future will be uncertain. The vote in 2005 will be certain. The outcome will not be certain, but there will be a vote in 2005. We know that because of the amendment language. So the beneficiaries of this amendment are the lobbyists and representatives of the communities, the communities kept nervous, kept in limbo. Keep the pot boiling; don't resolve this issue. The only argument to do that is first things first. We did that. We have our overseas basing commission in place, appointed, meeting. That is the logical process. We ought to let it play out.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder----

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Ulrich, a military fellow with Senator Dole, be given floor privileges for the duration of the bill.

Mr LEVIN

Mr LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the staff and students of Pioneer High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the school's designation as a 2004 GRAMMY Signature School. Pioneer is one of 41 high schools nationwide being honored by the GRAMMY Foundation for making an outstanding commitment to music education during the 2003-2004 school year. I am also pleased to note that Pioneer's program was placed in the gold category, making it among the seven best in the Nation. Established in 1989, the GRAMMY Foundation engages in programs and activities that cultivate the understanding and appreciation of recorded music and its impact on American culture. The GRAMMY Signature School program, with the most enthusiastic support of Dr. Pepper/7 Up, Inc., honors schools that recognize the positive effects that the arts and music have on young people and rewards these schools with a financial grant that assists them in continuing their exemplary music programs into the following school year. Last fall, the foundation contacted more than 20,000 public high schools to learn more about each school's music program. Competing with large and small institutions situated in rural and urban communities across America, Pioneer High School submitted its application to a panel comprised of top music educators and professionals. Its vocal and instrumental repertoire distinguished Pioneer as a secondary school committed to providing its students with an exceptional music education. As one of the gold category schools, Pioneer will receive a grant of $5,000 that will help the music department preserve and enhance its already remarkable music program. Providing an excellent music education for students enriches the entire learning experience. It is my honor to thank the staff and administrators at Pioneer who are responsible for supporting a solid foundation of music appreciation. I also wish to thank the young musicians who willingly dedicate their time and energy toward enhancing their own music abilities and urge them to share their love of music with the following generations. I am confident my colleagues will join me in offering our heartfelt congratulations for this outstanding achievement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could respond to my good friend from Virginia, we are hoping to clear that amendment. I believe it can be cleared. I hope it can be cleared. But apparently----