Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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, I must add a word of gratitude to Senator Reid for his always gracious commentary. This institution could just simply not function as well as we do with all of the roadblocks we face without Senator Reid. He is utterly unique in this institution in terms of moving the process forward. When we have setbacks or differences, he has overcome more of those than any other person in this Chamber as he serves as our assistant Democratic leader. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle is very much in his debt for his work, as well as for his excessively flattering comments for which I am personally indebted. I thank Senator Dorgan as well for his comments. One word about Senator Warner. Like him, I always look forward to our work on the Armed Services Committee. To put it in a nutshell, I have been blessed to have him as a partner. I just cannot conceive of having somebody with whom I would rather work on issues than having Senator Warner working on them as he does day in and day out. I agree with Senator Reid, it would not diminish his contribution militarily----

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Reid for his constancy and his commitment to this cause. His leadership has been nothing less than extraordinary. Last year, the legislation, which he initiated, to repeal this prohibition had 82 cosponsors. He has continued to fight for this repeal, fight the administration's significant opposition. I support that effort, and I think it is particularly important at a time when we have troops being shot at in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We know some of our service members are going to suffer injuries and disabilities because of that service and service elsewhere. We must assure them that if they complete a military career, they will not be deprived of the benefits they have earned. So I support this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Kennedy and all of his cosponsors for offering this amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts has identified a significant shortcoming in our current naturalization law. When we have people who are here legally, legal immigrants who have green cards, who join the Armed Forces, who put their lives on the line for our Nation, the least we can do is to make it easier for them to become citizens through the naturalization process. A number of things in this amendment highlight the clear and simple message we are trying to send to the men and women who are willing to go into harm's way for us and to make the commitment to our Nation that military service involves. Just a few elements: Naturalization can be carried out abroad. Right now that is not possible. Men and women of the military would have to come here, back to the geographical limits of the United States, in order to become naturalized. They could be assigned abroad, on duty abroad, and surely we want to make it possible for them to file their naturalization papers, to be interviewed, to take the oath to this Nation abroad at U.S. embassies or consulates or military installations. We also ought to take care of the members of the family of those who are killed or who die as a result of injury or disease that is incurred pursuant to military service. Those families, those noncitizen spouses and unmarried children and parents, who could become citizens while the loved one is alive surely should not lose that status and protection when the loved one is killed or lost in action or as a result of injury or disease. So what is done here is fundamentally human but also fundamentally significant in terms of what this Nation is all about. The men and women who are willing to join our Armed Forces to go and put their lives on the line for this Nation surely are owed a major debt by our country. One way we can in part pay this debt to them as well as to all members of the Armed Forces is to adopt the Kennedy amendment. Again, I commend him and all the cosponsors for offering it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is another issue which has been raised, and that is the future of our overseas bases. The question was asked, How do we consider the base structure in the United States before we determine the overseas base structure and what the requirements will be? There are three ongoing efforts in determining what our overseas presence will be for the future. First, the BRAC law itself requires an infrastructure facility review on a worldwide basis before the 2005 round can proceed. Second, in March, Secretary Rumsfeld requested input from the various combatant commanders in developing a comprehensive overseas presence in basing strategy looking out for the next 10 years. The results of that review are expected this July. Finally, there is a provision in the bill before us that establishes an independent overseas basing commission that will provide recommendations on our overseas presence and a basic strategy to Congress that is due in August of 2004. Senator Dorgan asked, How are we going to know what our needs are in 2005? That is when the recommendations are made to the Base Closing Commission--in May of 2005. This isn't something being done now or this year; these recommendations are due in May of 2005. I thank our colleagues who have maintained the difficult course here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. I believe the men and women in uniform and the taxpayers are served best by ensuring that this 2005 BRAC process go forward. Every day since September 11, they have been on the front lines of our daily fight against terrorism. They have been sent directly into battle in Afghanistan and most recently in Iraq. Every dollar wasted denies them the resources needed to ensure their success and their safety, and the success and safety of future men and women whom we place in harm's way. The Department of Defense estimates that as much as 25 percent of their current base structure is excess to their needs. We are spending billions of dollars year after year maintaining infrastructure that we simply do not need. It is a waste of public resources to hold onto this infrastructure, and it is an impediment to our efforts to protect our national security. Estimates of previous savings in previous BRAC rounds stand at $17 billion. Perhaps more significant for this debate are the annual savings we could expect from future base closings which are estimated at $6 billion a year. These savings have been documented countless times by the Department of Defense, by the GAO, and by the Congressional Budget Office in letter after letter saying the savings are significant. Our forces need resources for training, for technology, for weapons, and to maintain facilities in better condition. How do we justify asking our forces to go into combat and into harm's way if we ourselves are unwilling to take the difficult steps to give them the resources that they need and deserve and that we have the power to give to them? One of the most important questions that has been raised is, Does September 11 change all of this? We answered that question 2 years ago when we adopted the 2005 round. We authorized it at that time, after September 11. On November 16, 2001, GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote us the following: We estimate that 23 percent of our facilities are underutilized. The Services cannot afford the costs associated with this excess infrastructure. The Department of Defense must have the ability to restructure the installations to better meet the current national security needs. The sustained campaign against international terrorism will require wise use of our resources and the aggressive elimination of waste. A letter written on October 15, 2001--a month after September 11-- signed by I think every former Secretary of Defense, says: We are concerned that the reluctance to close unneeded facilities is a drag on our military forces, particularly in an era when homeland security is being discussed as never before. The forces needed to defend bases that would perhaps otherwise be closed are forces unavailable for the campaign on terrorism. Further, money spent on a redundant facility is money not spent on the latest technology we'll need to win this campaign. I ask unanimous consent that those two letters I have identified be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I will take that as my time is up. I yield back the remainder of my time on Senator Warner.

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, how much time remains?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for the extremely thoughtful and thorough way he handles these bills, the fair way he operates. We are all grateful to the committee and our staffs. We are both grateful to our staffs, and I thank all Members of this body. This last vote was particularly a difficult vote for everyone, whichever way they voted. It was a difficult vote. We know that. Let's hope we can reach the right result.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The Chair appointed Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Allard, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Collins, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Talent, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Pryor, as conferees on the past of the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is ironic that on the same day that the Republican majority passed a huge tax cut package that will cost, without the gimmicks, up to a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, they also are asking us to raise the limit on the national debt by $984 billion, which would be the largest increase in our Nation's history. Just 2 years ago, the President asserted that passage of his massive $1.4 trillion in tax cuts would still allow us to eliminate our publicly held debt by 2008. Under the budget resolution that was passed recently, it's estimated that our publicly held debt will be over $5 trillion by 2008. So, under this Administration's fiscal policies, we have gone from an estimate of zero in publicly held debt in 2008 to an estimate over $5 trillion in publicly held debt in 2008. That's an astounding reversal by any measure. The President also said that his past tax cuts would create jobs. That doesn't jibe with the fact that we've lost 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush took office, many of those since his last tax program was adopted. We need to increase the debt limit, but we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. Instead of increasing it by a trillion dollars, let's make the increase more reasonable, like the $350 billion increase that Senator Baucus is advocating. This will give us the opportunity to assess our fiscal policies sooner rather than later, to review our economic situation prior to making significant decisions which could harm us down the road. In light of our struggling economy and the huge deficit ditch that we find ourselves in, an opportunity for review sooner rather than later is essential to the economic and fiscal health of our Nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the fiscally irresponsible and unfair tax cut which is before the Senate because it is not what our country needs. It is ironic that on the same day that a final vote is being taken on this huge tax cut package, the Republican majority also is bringing to the floor legislation that would raise the limit on the national debt by $984 billion, the largest in our Nation's history. This tax cut bill has more deceptions in it than an Enron financial statement. It purports to cost only $350 billion over the next 10 years, but its true costs are masked by multiple ``now you see them, now you don't'' gimmicks that will in reality cost up to a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. With deficits of over $300 billion projected for this year and the next, the last thing we need are huge tax cuts that will serve to dig us that much further into the deficit ditch. Future generations deserve better. Furthermore, this approach will be largely ineffective in providing our economy the immediate jumpstart it needs. By giving too much to those who need it the least--the average 2003 tax cut for a millionaire will be about $93,500; the average 2003 tax cut for someone in the middle of the income spectrum will be $217--the bill will be far less effective in stimulating the economy than it would be if the tax cuts were directed to taxpayers of more modest means who would spend the tax cut now. In addition, only 17 percent of this package goes into effect in 2003, when we need it, but instead will take place years down the road. Our economy is struggling right now. Eight-and-a-half million Americans are out of work; 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost since the beginning of this administration. Michigan lost 17,000 jobs just last month, the most of any State in the country. What we need are immediate jobs and relief, not more of the same ``trickle- down'' policies that have been tried and that failed in the past. Expert commentators have pointed out that this bill will make it easier for corporate and upper income taxpayers to use tax shelters to even further reduce their tax bills. Instead of ending the so-called double taxation of dividends, this bill provides those with the means to accomplish it a roadmap to no taxation. That's just plain wrong. Providing large tax cuts to the wealthy in the hopes that the benefits with trickle down to everybody else hasn't worked before, and there's little reason to think that it will work now. Following the same approach that failed time and again just doesn't make sense. Just 2 years ago, President Bush was promising that his first massive tax cut of $1.4 trillion would jumpstart the economy and create jobs. It didn't. Moreover, I am disappointed that the conference report stripped out provisions that were included in the Senate-passed bill that would have cracked down on corporations who engage in sham transactions involving offshore tax havens. Loopholes like these encourage investment overseas, not here in America. We should be closing down corporate loopholes, not preserving them. While I am pleased that this bill contains some funds to assist our struggling State and local governments, it does not do nearly enough. Our States currently are facing their worst fiscal crisis in over 50 years, with many being forced to raise taxes or cut vital services like Medicaid in order to balance their budgets. Instead of doing all that we should to assist them, this bill includes a dividends reduction provision that will actually strip States of revenues, something which will stimulate neither jobs nor growth. I supported and voted for an alternative tax package that was about creating jobs now, when we need it, in a way that did not mortgage our future. The plan I supported was estimated to put more than 1 million people back to work by the end of 2004 at a fraction of this bill's costs. It would have cut taxes for every taxpaying American, providing a tax cut of $1,630 to a family of four through a wage credit, an acceleration of the child tax credit, and an elimination of the marriage penalty. I would have helped small businesses by providing them with a 50 percent tax credit to help employers maintain health coverage for their workers, and would have provided large and small companies with incentives to invest and create jobs by allowing small businesses to immediately write-off more investments and providing bonus depreciation to all companies. It also would have provided unemployment benefits for nearly 4 million laid-off workers, including those who have already exhausted their benefits. What our sagging economy needs right now is immediate jobs, growth, and stimulus, and that's what the plan I supported offered. Insted, what will pass today is a package that is the wrong medicine for our ailing economy. It will create fewer jobs than what is needed. It will slight middle-class families in favor of the wealthy. And it will dramatically increase the deficit and national debt and drive up interest rates which will make it more expensive in the future to buy a house, pay for college, or pay off credit card debt. This is not what Americans need. I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1994 President Clinton signed into law a ban on the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics, such as bayonets and pistol grips. This law is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004. If the law is not reauthorized, the production of military-style semiautomatic weapons can legally resume. In March of this year, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated the Bush administration's support for the current ban on assault weapons but would not indicate support for reauthorization of the ban. Recently, the White House indicated the President does support reauthorizing the ban. However, a senior White House adviser reportedly said that this bill would never make it to the President's desk. And a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Tom Delay recently said ``we have no intentions of bringing it up.'' Failure to reauthorize the legislation would be irresponsible because the assault weapon ban works. According to National Institute of Justice statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, gun trace requests for assault weapons declined 20 percent in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10 percent and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent. Given the firepower of these firearms, it is not surprising that so many law enforcement organizations supported the Federal assault weapons ban and worked for its passage. Among the many that supported the ban were the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. It is critical that we reauthorize the assault weapons ban. Absent such action, AK47s, UZIs, and other semi-automatic weapons will again become easily obtainable weapons of choice for gang members, drug dealers, and other dangerous criminals. I urge the President to show his support for this bill by asking the House Republican Leadership to pass this bill in the House and the Senate Leadership to pass it in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 818

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 789, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection 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. 820

Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment 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. 821

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I offer an amendment that would increase the maximum Federal contribution to the National Guard Challenge Program in States from the current 60 percent to 65 percent for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection to the amendment on this side.