Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield--we are trying to figure out the numbers on this--just for a question?

Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps we can get the numbers clarified overnight. Senator Daschle's estimate, after the first few years, where, I guess, there is a phase-in of some kind, is $1.2 billion, as the Senator from South Carolina indicated. I am trying to understand why that number might be lower than the number of the Senator from South Carolina, given the fact that under Senator Daschle's approach, the service members could keep their private insurance and then have it reimbursed by the Defense Department, which would seem to be a better deal for the service member. The service member has an option to maintain his private insurance but, on the other hand, might have a larger cost to the Government. I wonder if the numbers of the two amendments come from the same place and looking at the same time.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator indicating the cost of maintaining the private care option is not included in the estimates that Senator Daschle received?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from Nevada for two things: First, for his faithful commitment to this issue. Currently, we see it as an issue of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from North Dakota and a number of other Senators who have joined to try to bring equity in this area. We made at least some progress; it is because of their energy we have made the progress we have. Second, I thank him for his acceptance of the ruling of the Chair. It is very important he does that because all Members need to accept the rulings of the Chair in the absence, it seems to me, of some overwhelming unusual precedent that would allow us to try to overrule the Chair. The whip's, the Democratic whip's approach is one which I think reflects the best traditions and the best instincts of this body. I thank him. It also helped Senator Warner and I to complete this bill within the parameters of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a minute?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very appropriate that our Presiding Officer is the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. He and Senator Ben Nelson have worked closely together to give us a product of which we can be proud. We are very indebted to the two of you. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could ask the Senator to yield for 30 seconds so I could add my thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island for his indispensable contribution to the Armed Services Committee. He mentioned a few issues where he had some very strong feelings. These issues are just a few of the many where he has made an extraordinary contribution by experience and by intellect. He is really in a position to add immeasurably to the work of our committee. We are all very much in his debt for it.

Mr. LEVIN. I point out one other fact for the consideration of my good friend, the chairman. The chairman, of course, makes an important point about the fact there is a distinction between Active Duty and Reserve and there are certain benefits that people in Active Duty have which make it a little more attractive, perhaps, than it otherwise might be in comparison to being in the Reserves. There is a distinction in this amendment, as I read it, which requires the reservists while not on active duty to pay the premium. It is 28 percent of the total amount determined by the Secretary. That is a distinction between Active Duty and Reserve, where the active-duty personnel, of course, do not have to pay their own share; whereas, under the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, the reservists while not on active duty would have to pay, as I understand it, the share of about 28 percent. That does retain that important distinction, while it does clearly confer a benefit, which is an important benefit because of all the reservists we have who simply do not have health insurance. We want them to be in a healthy state if and when they are called up--and we ought to want them in a healthy state even if they are never called up--but surely if they are called up it is important they be in good health. Having access here to what is equal to what Federal employees have, that is what the Senator from South Dakota and the cosponsors are attempting to do, to give reservists the same kind of health care Federal employees have. That includes paying their own part of the premium but again having access to health insurance, which is so important for us to have a healthy Reserve Corps.

Mr. LEVIN. We are going to ask our staffs to take a look at this issue overnight. There is a real difference.

Mr. LEVIN. In which case the estimate would not be accurate.

Mr. LEVIN. So the Senator is suggesting--it is important to get these numbers straightened out overnight--that the cost to the Government of the second option that Senator Daschle offers, which is to maintain private insurance, that cost is not included in the estimate which was given to Senator Daschle?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield before yielding the floor just for a question? First of all, I join my good friend from Virginia in commending the Senator from Maine for her great work in both our committee and also as chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she is doing an absolutely superb job. Part of that job is to take a look at proposals that are as far-reaching as the one that was very suddenly dropped upon us by the Department of Defense. This is a far-reaching proposal. We have had very little time, as these matters go, to look at it. This Senate is a body which deliberates over these kinds of changes. I would hope that we would, No. 1, try to fashion a draft for consideration which would give greater flexibility--and I know Senator Collins is working extremely hard to do just that--but I also commend her for her caution, it seems to me, in saying that we are going to put together a draft and then we are going to propose it. Because there are some procedures which really should be followed here to protect the men and women in our civilian force, just the way we have those procedures for our uniformed forces. The quality of life, which we talk about all the time and we try to protect, is important, surely, for our uniformed men and women, but it is also important for the civilians, and they are entitled to have a proposal which they can look at, which they can comment on, and not one which is just suddenly sprung upon them by the Congress, whether it is the House, which acted very quickly on this far-ranging proposal, or by the Senate. So I want to just suggest that we try to arrive at something which does give greater flexibility, but we do so in a way which shows the kind of deliberation and the kind of consideration which this body has been renowned for and which I know both my colleagues have been very supportive of throughout their careers.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I look forward to many more times.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Warner for shepherding the Defense authorization bill to the floor again. I do not know how many times he has led the effort--I lost count--but each time he has handled the very difficult duties with great fairness and, I think, timely, perhaps with record dispatch. He is always efficient and, it seems to me--and I agree with Senator Warner--this may set a record in the committee, for many of the reasons our chairman mentioned, including the determination that we be together totally as a body in support of the men and women in the Armed Forces who are in so many dangerous places in the world as we speak. I also join Chairman Warner in commending all of the committee members for their hard work; our staffs, for the long hours they put in to produce this bill. As always, it is a complicated bill, a detailed bill and, more than ever perhaps, a critically important bill. As we begin the consideration of this bill this afternoon, our men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve who are deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe, are being subjected almost daily to armed attack in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our Armed Forces have demonstrated extraordinary military prowess. Their success is a tribute first and foremost to their own skill, dedication, and professionalism, and to the skill of their leaders. It is also the result of the investments in national defense that many administrations and Congresses have made over the years. Our success on the battlefields of the future will depend on the investments we make today to prepare, train, and equip our military. The bill provides our Armed Forces with the means they need to meet today's challenges and it makes the investments that will be needed to respond to the challenges of this century. It also continues the increases in compensation and quality of life for our service men and women and their families. Chairman Warner has described in some detail what is contained in the bill, and I will not attempt to duplicate his summary, but I would like to make a few general comments and point out a couple of matters where there is a divergence of view within the committee. This is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is balanced for many reasons. It equips the Armed Forces to deal with today's threats and it makes the investments necessary to transform our forces to meet the threats of the future. It is balanced in that it does not prematurely seek to apply lessons some may believe have been learned from Iraq even before the Department of Defense has had an opportunity to study and analyze that conflict and to report to us on what lessons they believe have been learned. In his briefing of Senators in S-407 on May 8, General Franks specifically noted that it would take some time to identify the lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom, and we could do harm to our national defense if we sought to apply the wrong lessons from those operations or if we too speedily determined what, in fact, were the lessons learned. The bill is also balanced in that it seeks to incorporate those provisions of the Department of Defense's transformation proposals that provide appropriate flexibility for the operation of the Department in a manner that preserves congressional oversight responsibilities. For example, the bill contains provisions that would repeal dozens of reporting requirements, establishes a new defense modernization account to fund life cycle cost reduction initiatives. It authorizes a pilot program to test new procedures for conducting public/private competitions. It provides the Department with special pay authority to help it fill critical positions. It is also balanced because of the provisions it does not include. The bill before us does not include provisions that would undermine the ability of the uniformed military to provide independent advice to the civilian chain of command, and to the Congress. It does not include provisions which would undermine congressional oversight by repealing the requirement that the Department of Defense provide us with basic information on the costs, schedule, and performance of major weapons programs. The bill before us does not authorize the reorganization of the Department of Defense without regard to statutory requirements or establish a foreign military assistance program to be conducted by the Department of Defense rather than by the Department of State. The bill does not authorize the Department to move money from one program to another without congressional authorization. Perhaps the most pointed evidence of the balanced nature of this bill is that it was reported out of committee with the unanimous support of all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a tribute to the balance of the bill but also to the leadership of our chairman. That does not mean there are not any provisions in the bill on which there is disagreement, because there are. There are a number of areas that are troublesome and on which I expect there will be significant debate this week. For example, there are provisions in report language that move us in the direction of developing new nuclear weapons and modifications of current nuclear weapons. Current U.S. law bans research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so-called low yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5 kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima which immediately killed an estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The administration has asked this ban be repealed. If the ban is repealed, the purpose is to make nuclear weapons more usable. As stated by Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee: I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum destruction. . . . I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable. The language approved by the majority of the Armed Services Committee would repeal the ban on the development of low yield nuclear weapons. Without this ban, there is no impediment in law to research, development, testing, production, or deployment of new low yield nuclear weapons. The bill also provides the National Nuclear Security Administration with funds the administration requested to continue work on a robust nuclear earth penetrator. This effort would modify one of two existing high yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification are high yield nuclear weapons with yields approximating 30 and 70 times the nuclear explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Without a requirement that that nuclear earth penetrator weapon be authorized by Congress, there is no legal impediment to its development, testing, production, or deployment. At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and when we suggest that indeed we may use military force to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, when we are spending billions of dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology, these proposed actions by the administration would send the opposite message we are trying to give to the world. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road. The United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate in others. In the area of ballistic missile defense, one of the problems lies in what is not in the bill rather than what is in the bill. The missile defense program continues to move along, spending billions of dollars without performance criteria. Moreover, the Department of Defense has cancelled plans for 9 of the 20 ground-based midcourse interceptors that have been planned from 2003 to 2007. Surely we have an obligation to test the limited ballistic missile defense and to understand the extent to which it will or will not work. Yet one of the key tests the Department proposed to cancel is the most significant test. It was scheduled before the end of the fiscal year 2004. We restored that funding in committee. If we want a missile defense system that actually works, rather than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not be cancelling tests. The administration actually requested that operational testing not be required on a limited missile defense system. We refused that request and we struck the language the administration had proposed. Again, thankfully, our bill restores an intercept test with a missile defense program in 2004. More needs to be done to assure that this system is tested adequately and proven to really work. The rest of the canceled tests should be restored. There will be debate on these and other areas relating to the Department of Defense authorization bill. I conclude by stating, again, the bill the committee has reported out under the leadership of Chairman Warner is a good bill. His leadership made it happen. I commend him.

Mr. LEVIN. I know the Senator from Massachusetts wished to speak. Is Senator Collins ready to go? Perhaps the Chair could recognize whoever is ready to go.

Mr. LEVIN. I think one of the important words in the question asked by the Senator from Virginia is the word ``constructively.'' I would just add the word ``fairly.'' So if we can do something that is constructive and fair for the people impacted----

Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me we ought to give it a try. Those are important conditions, in my book.

Mr. LEVIN. There were precedents of many varieties, some good, some not so good.

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection whatsoever. I am curious as to whether we are under time limits.

Mr. LEVIN. That is fine with me. I am happy to yield. How much time does my friend need?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation released a report entitled the Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, analyzing the Justice Department's commitment to enforcing and prosecuting gun laws. The report examines prosecution data acquired under the Freedom of Information Act from the Justice Department for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. The AGS study reveals a significant gap between the number of Federal gun crimes committed and the number of Federal prosecutions initiated. The report found that 20 of the 22 major Federal gun laws are rarely prosecuted. The two statutes consistently enforced by Federal prosecutors are laws against the use of a firearm in the commission of a Federal crime and a felon in possession of a firearm. The other 20 laws address other illegal firearm activity, including gun trafficking, firearm theft, lying on a criminal background check form, removing firearm serial numbers, and selling guns to minors. The statistics in the AGS report are startling. According to AGS, in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, Federal prosecutors filed 197 cases for gun trafficking, despite 100,000 guns showing signs of trafficking. Only 27 cases were filed against corrupt gun dealers, even though AGS reports that gun dealers are the leading source of firearms recovered in gun trafficking operations. Prosecutors in 22 States filed no cases against individuals committing the 20 least prosecuted crimes. Across the country, only seven cases for illegally selling a gun to a minor were filed, even though more than 30,000 gun crimes were committed by youths age 17 or under. Only 202 cases were filed for possessing or selling a stolen firearm, despite nearly 140,000 reported gun thefts that year in which the make, model, and serial number of a stolen gun was reported to police. And a mere 98 cases for possessing or selling a firearm with an obliterated serial number were prosecuted, despite thousands of these guns being recovered in just a few cities in one year. I believe vigorous law enforcement is a critical step toward reducing gun violence. I urge the Justice Department to step up its efforts to prosecute not only people who commit gun crimes but those corrupt dealers who put guns in criminal hands.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Montana. Some U.S. companies have opened sham offices in Bermuda and pretended that the sham offices are the parent corporation, and thereby avoided taxes which the rest of us have to pay and which, indeed, their competitors have to pay. It is called inversion. It is not only a sham, it is shameful. This bill takes some steps in addressing future inversions, but in terms of people who have already inverted, there is a lot of additional work to do. The ill-gotten gains which some companies have obtained through these sham moves to Bermuda should be confronted. It is not only unpatriotic, it is costing American taxpayers about $2 billion over the next 10 years. My amendment would have addressed the future tax avoidance of people who have already gone through these sham moves to Bermuda. Rather than offering the amendment at this time--it is a somewhat complicated amendment--I ask the Senator from Montana whether he might be able to support an effort along this line in the future.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend and I will not be calling up my amendment. Amendment No. 616

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support this fiscally irresponsible and unfair tax cut package. Our economy is struggling right now. Eight-and-a-half million Americans are out of work, and we now have about 2.7 million fewer private sector jobs than were in existence at the beginning of this administration. No President since the Great Depression has ended a term with fewer jobs than when his term began. Michigan has an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, among the highest in the Nation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigan lost 17,700 jobs just last month, the most of any State in the country. That brings the total number of Michigan jobs lost since the Bush administration took office to over 178,000, and the total number of unemployed in Michigan to 344,000. We are also back into a deep deficit ditch. As recently as January 2001, the Office of Management and Budget projected a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now, under the recently passed budget resolution, we face an estimated deficit of $1.95 trillion over the same time period, including record deficits of over $300 billion for this year and the next. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently reiterated that the bigger the deficits, the higher the long-term interest rates, which means higher home, car, college and credit card payments for us all. Our economy needs a lift now. It needs real jobs and real growth now, not a rehash of the same policies that were tried and failed in the recent past. Unfortunately, this bill only provides more of the same failed policies. While the bill purports to cost $350 billion over 10 years--an amount which already is fiscally irresponsible given our current deficit--this number is arrived at by using a budget gimmick that masks the true cost of the bill, which in reality is upwards of $660 billion over 10 years. The bill would completely exclude dividend income from individual taxation in 2004 through 2006, a policy that is expensive, not very stimulative to our economy and sharply slanted towards upper income folks. But then the bill ``sunsets'' the dividend exclusion so that it disappears beginning in 2007. Not only is that bad policy, it is also disingenuous and deceptive to the American people. This bill also is too generous to those who need it the least. The top 10 percent of taxpayers would receive well over 50 percent of the tax benefits, and in 2003, those with incomes above $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $64,400, while those in the middle of the income spectrum would receive an average tax cut of only $233. Providing large tax cuts to the wealthy in the hopes that the benefits will trickle down to everybody else hasn't worked before, and there is little reason to think that it will work now. Following the same approach that failed time and again just doesn't make sense. This plan provides no unemployment benefits to any of our 8.7 million unemployed Americans. It is ironic that in a bill that is based on the President's so-called ``Jobs and Growth'' package, the Republican majority is not addressing the immediate need for job assistance for millions of Americans. It is elementary economics that providing additional unemployment benefits is an excellent way to jump start a stagnant economy. The money we are talking about is money that will be spent. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, every $1 invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 in Gross Domestic Product. That is what our economy needs, not wildly expensive tax cuts that do little in the short term at a huge long-term cost. While I am pleased that this bill contains funds to assist our struggling State and local governments, it does not do 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 exclusion provision that will actually strip States of revenues, something which will stimulate neither jobs nor growth. I supported and voted for a 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. It 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 is what the plan I supported offered. Instead, what passed 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 to buy a house, pay for college, or pay off credit card debt. That is just not a plan that I can vote for.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment being offered by Senator Kennedy to extend and authorize additional unemployment benefits. This is a tumultuous time for millions of Americans. Our economy is struggling right now and millions of Americans are down on their luck. Businesses and manufacturing plants are closing, the stock market is down and most importantly, jobs are being lost. It is critical that we in Congress, at a minimum, do what we can to help every day Americans hurt by this downturn, especially the increasing number of people who are unemployed and having trouble getting back into the workforce. There are currently over 8.7 million unemployed Americans--the highest number in a decade. Since January 2001, the national unemployment rate has risen from 4.2 percent to over 6.0 percent. Since President Bush took office, the United States has lost over 2.7 million private sector jobs--the most of any President in modern history. The downturn has especially hit my home State of Michigan hard. Michigan has an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent--among the highest in the Nation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigan lost 17,700 jobs just last month--the most of any State in the country. That brings the total number of Michigan jobs lost since the Bush Administration took office to over 178,000. Earlier this year, Congress extended Federal unemployment benefits for an additional five months to June 1, 2003. However, Congress did not authorize additional Federal benefits. Therefore, over 1 million workers who already had exhausted their 13 weeks of federal unemployment benefits and received no benefit from what Congress did earlier this year. Now is the time to assist those workers and all other Americans who are on the verge of exhausting either their state or federal unemployment benefits and in some cases, both. It is ironic that during the week the Senate is taking up the President's ``Jobs and Growth'' package--the majority is not addressing the immediate need for job assistance for millions of Americans. Instead of pressing Congress for a ``robust'' tax cut to help the wealthiest Americans, the President should be fighting for additional unemployment benefits for working families who need them and will spend them, stimulating the economy. That is why I support Senator Kennedy's amendment to authorize an additional 13 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits, including coverage for those one million workers who have already exhausted their benefits. Senator Kennedy's amendment also expands unemployment coverage to low-wage and part-time workers. Finally, the amendment extends the Federal unemployment benefit program through November 2003 to accommodate new enrollees. This is not just about doing what is right. It is also about doing what is helpful to our economy. It is elementary economics that providing additional unemployment benefits is a great way to jump start our stagnant economy. The money we are talking about here is money that will be spent. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, every $1 dollar invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 in gross domestic product. So we are going to be putting money into the hands of people who need it, people who will spend it, people who will help the economy. Over 47,000 Michigan residents have exhausted their Federal unemployment benefits as of February of this year. If we fail to act, in 2 weeks, over 1.1 million Americans, including nearly 54,000 Michigan residents, will be without unemployment insurance benefits. This is unacceptable, especially given the fact that the Federal unemployment insurance trust fund currently has a surplus of more than $21 billion. The contrast couldn't be more evident than in this debate. Instead of pushing for a huge tax cut sharply slanted to upper income folks, I would hope that the Senate will show real leadership and support unemployment insurance that benefits working families. The President accuses us of engaging in ``class warfare.'' Well, what he calls class warfare, I call reality. Under the President's tax cut plan, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are expected to receive an annual tax cut of about $90,000 a year, or a little more than $1700 a week. Under the Kennedy amendment, unemployed workers in my home state of Michigan would receive a maximum benefit of $362 a week. This bill will put money into the hands of people who need it and people who will spend it. That's good for our economy and it helps sustain the jobs that other people do have. The Senate should unanimously adopt this amendment.