Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. That is the important difference. But the word is the same word.

Mr. LEVIN. The important fact is it is not binding.

Mr. LEVIN. That is what it comes down to. This is not an issue as to who has the power to withdraw from a treaty. Both the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Delaware make arguments about that issue. That is not resolved in this amendment. Both of their remarks address that issue, as did my remarks. I am the first one to acknowledge that as a matter of fact the Constitution is silent with respect to the power to terminate treaties. That is the quote I used before that came from the Congressional Research Service. The Constitution is silent. There has not been a resolution of this issue. There is the Goldwater case that can be interpreted as the Senator from Delaware did. We do not resolve that issue in this amendment. This amendment does not remove from the President, nor does it purport to remove from the President, the power to terminate or extend a treaty. That issue is a major constitutional issue. I cannot believe, and I did not hear that either of our colleagues suggested, that there is a constitutional problem with my amendment because my amendment does not require the President to get the advice and consent of the Senate to withdraw from the treaty. My amendment simply says: Before you exercise your right to withdraw, give 60 days' notice to the Senate. I don't think there is the slightest constitutional infirmity in simply providing what the President says he intends to do and what the committee says is desirable be done in the language of the committee ratification resolution, that we urge a formal request that the executive branch consult with the Senate of the United States. There is no constitutional issue with my amendment. With the Senator from Wisconsin's second-degree amendment, which has been withdrawn, there was a very serious constitutional issue, one which we could spend days on in the Senate, as to whether or not we can require in a ratification resolution that the President obtain our consent to the withdrawal from a treaty. That is a major, massive constitutional issue. That one has resonated around the country for a couple hundred years. That was not going to be resolved in this Resolution of Ratification. I hope some day it is resolved in a lengthy debate. But what I am proposing is simply the most modest step to give some protection to the obligation and responsibility of this institution relative to treaty-making power, which is that we just be given notice, 60 days' notice, and consultation prior to a decision of the President to withdraw from a treaty. I have not heard today, and I don't believe that there is, a serious argument that my amendment raises constitutional issues. As a matter of fact, almost by definition, it cannot, since the President says he is intending to consult with us and since the committee says it is desirable that he do so. I have not heard that argument. Again, I don't believe it could be a serious argument, that we could simply not do what this amendment does, which is to require that there be 60 days' notice and consultation. But how the suggestion could be made that the President would walk away from this treaty if the Resolution of Ratification contains language that embodies what the intention of the administration is to do anyway, and what the committee is urging the administration to do anyway, is a complete mystery to me. That one befuddles me--the idea that this administration, which has proposed and signed this treaty, would walk away from the treaty if the Senate says in a ratification resolution that the administration will give us the same notice that the administration says it intends to give us. That one, it seems to me, is not a credible argument. So there is going to be disagreement as to whether or not the Senate has the power to put in a ratification resolution a provision that the President must, before extension or withdrawal, get the approval of the Senate. If that were part of my amendment, I could understand why there would be a massive debate over that issue--mainly between the White House, which I think would say no way, and many Members of the Senate would say that is the only way we can protect the constitutional obligation of the Senate. But that is not this amendment. That was the Feingold amendment, which was withdrawn. This amendment walks a middle road and says we want to get a commitment in this resolution that we be given the notice and consultation which the administration says it intends to give us. It cannot bind future administrations. This administration--I don't have any doubt--intends to do what it says it intends to do. Secretary Powell says he intends to give notice. I take him at his word. He is an honorable man. But administrations come and go and intentions change with future administrations. That is the relevance of this amendment-- to put in our ratification resolution what the committee says is desirable, and what the committee says it urges the administration to do, and what the administration says it intends to do, and about which I have not heard a constitutional argument, for good reason, because here we are not limiting the power of the President to withdraw from a treaty. The President has the same power to withdraw from a treaty before or after my amendment is defeated or accepted. That power doesn't change. What changes, however, with this amendment, would be to say that the Senate, as part of its treaty obligation and responsibility, wants to be informed prior to the withdrawal from or extension of a treaty that the executive branch enters into. That is, again, a summary of the amendment. I hope, even though obviously the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee oppose this for the reasons they give--and I don't think there are two Members of the Senate for whom I have greater respect than these two Members. We have worked together on these issues. Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and I have worked together on so many issues over the years that I have lost count. My respect and regard for them is boundless. But I think this is an issue of important principle that the Senate should address--whether or not we want to be given notice before a President withdraws from this treaty that we are about to ratify, hopefully. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEVIN. This is a procedural inquiry. We are trying to determine-- to assist a colleague who has an urgent, unusual need--if we can set a time on this amendment at 4:05; would that be amenable? I hate to interrupt my friend.

Mr. LEVIN. That is what is difficult. The earlier we are able to set a time, the earlier we will be able to vote. If we set it 10 minutes from now, it would have to be 4:15 instead of 4:05.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor to the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I expect to take just a few minutes. I will be offering an amendment and then having a colloquy. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Akaka, and Senator Nelson of Florida.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the Nation's waters. This bill deals with the prevention of new introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms coming into the country, the rapid response to new invasions, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill. The problem of invasive species is a very real one. Over the past 450 years, during colonization and development of this country, more than 6,500 nonindigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes. Some of my colleagues may remember that back in the late eighties, the problem of aquatic nuisance species was first raised after the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for ballast. Aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships, often from halfway around the world, pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. Aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains. Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that have reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, the effectiveness of ballast water exchange has been left undefined. Consequently, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only onboard ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water. Our bill rectifies this problem. First, this bill establishes deadlines for national interim and final standards for ballast water management. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know when to expect clear requirements. Second, our bill establishes what the phrase ``as effective as ballast water exchange'' means for the purposes of the interim period. Research has shown that ballast water exchange has highly variable effectiveness rates. This bill takes the maximum effectiveness that ballast water exchange could have using the safest approach--a 95-percent reduction of near coastal plankton and establishes it as the floor for treatment effectiveness which is a 95 percent kill or removal of live organisms. Within 18 months of the bill's passage, the Coast Guard is required to issue regulations implementing an interim ballast water standard that would require ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles to either use ballast water treatment technology that meets the standard, retain the ship's ballast water, or exchange the ship's ballast water in the high seas. Ships operating in coastal waters would not be required to manage ballast water during the interim standard. A 95-percent reduction of organisms will be the interim standard used for treatment technology until the EPA, with the concurrence of the Coast Guard, promulgates the final standard. This interim standard is not intended to be implemented for the long run, and it is not perfect. However, a final standard is difficult to set today or in the near future because of the limited research that has been conducted on how clean or sterile ballast water discharge should be, what is the best expression of a standard, and what is technologically achievable. Rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop new introductions, I believe that an imperfect but clear and achievable interim standard for treatment technology is the right approach. This interim standard will lead to the use of ballast treatments that are more protective of our waters than the default method of ballast water exchange provides, and it can be implemented in the very near future. Further, the bill provides the Coast Guard with the flexibility to promulgate the interim standard using a size-based standard or by whatever parameters the Coast Guard determines appropriate. I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched and are ready to be tested onboard ships. These technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, and several others. Each of these technologies has a different pricetag attached to it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based on ``best available technology economically achievable.'' That means that the EPA must consider what technology is available, and if there is not economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of vessels, subject to review every 3 years. I do not believe this will be the case, however, because the approach creates a clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the market. Since ballast technology will be always evolving, it is important that the EPA review and revise the standard so that it reflects what is the best technology currently available and whether it is economically achievable. Shipowners cannot be expected to upgrade their equipment upon every few years as technology develops, however, so the law provides an approval period of at least 10 years. There are other important provisions of the bill as well. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. The bill establishes an experimental ballast treatment approval process to take effect immediately so that the treatment technology industry can begin full-scale experimental installations of treatments on ships. The bill authorizes additional funding for better coordinated research to find effective means of combating invasive species. It would help Federal, State, and regional authorities guard against future invasions by developing early detection monitoring and rapid response plans. And it provides funding for outreach and education programs to inform the public and marina owners about the dangers of inadvertently carrying aquatic invaders on the hulls of recreational boats or dumping bait buckets into the Lakes. Invasive species threaten the region's biological diversity and are an economic drain. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused nationwide by invasive species go as high as $137 billion. Because of the system of canals connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean, there are no physical barriers to block the spread of invasive species, making the Great Lakes highly vulnerable. Because of the frequency of ships entering into the Great Lakes, though, our region is often ``ground zero,'' and once an exotic species establishes itself, it is almost impossible to eradicate and sometimes difficult to prevent from moving throughout the nation. Therefore, prevention is the key to controlling new introductions. All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the $137 billion annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the Nation's waters. This bill deals with the prevention of new introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms coming into the country, the rapid response to new invasions, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill. The problem of invasive species is a very real one. Over the past 450 years, during colonization and development of this country, more than 6,500 nonindigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes. Some of my colleagues may remember that back in the late eighties, the problem of aquatic nuisance species was first raised after the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for ballast. Aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships, often from halfway around the world, pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. Aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains. Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that have reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, the effectiveness of ballast water exchange has been left undefined. Consequently, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only onboard ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water. Our bill rectifies this problem. First, this bill establishes deadlines for national interim and final standards for ballast water management. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know when to expect clear requirements. Second, our bill establishes what the phrase ``as effective as ballast water exchange'' means for the purposes of the interim period. Research has shown that ballast water exchange has highly variable effectiveness rates. This bill takes the maximum effectiveness that ballast water exchange could have using the safest approach--a 95-percent reduction of near coastal plankton and establishes it as the floor for treatment effectiveness which is a 95 percent kill or removal of live organisms. Within 18 months of the bill's passage, the Coast Guard is required to issue regulations implementing an interim ballast water standard that would require ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles to either use ballast water treatment technology that meets the standard, retain the ship's ballast water, or exchange the ship's ballast water in the high seas. Ships operating in coastal waters would not be required to manage ballast water during the interim standard. A 95-percent reduction of organisms will be the interim standard used for treatment technology until the EPA, with the concurrence of the Coast Guard, promulgates the final standard. This interim standard is not intended to be implemented for the long run, and it is not perfect. However, a final standard is difficult to set today or in the near future because of the limited research that has been conducted on how clean or sterile ballast water discharge should be, what is the best expression of a standard, and what is technologically achievable. Rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop new introductions, I believe that an imperfect but clear and achievable interim standard for treatment technology is the right approach. This interim standard will lead to the use of ballast treatments that are more protective of our waters than the default method of ballast water exchange provides, and it can be implemented in the very near future. Further, the bill provides the Coast Guard with the flexibility to promulgate the interim standard using a size-based standard or by whatever parameters the Coast Guard determines appropriate. I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched and are ready to be tested onboard ships. These technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, and several others. Each of these technologies has a different pricetag attached to it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based on ``best available technology economically achievable.'' That means that the EPA must consider what technology is available, and if there is not economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of vessels, subject to review every 3 years. I do not believe this will be the case, however, because the approach creates a clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the market. Since ballast technology will be always evolving, it is important that the EPA review and revise the standard so that it reflects what is the best technology currently available and whether it is economically achievable. Shipowners cannot be expected to upgrade their equipment upon every few years as technology develops, however, so the law provides an approval period of at least 10 years. There are other important provisions of the bill as well. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. The bill establishes an experimental ballast treatment approval process to take effect immediately so that the treatment technology industry can begin full-scale experimental installations of treatments on ships. The bill authorizes additional funding for better coordinated research to find effective means of combating invasive species. It would help Federal, State, and regional authorities guard against future invasions by developing early detection monitoring and rapid response plans. And it provides funding for outreach and education programs to inform the public and marina owners about the dangers of inadvertently carrying aquatic invaders on the hulls of recreational boats or dumping bait buckets into the Lakes. Invasive species threaten the region's biological diversity and are an economic drain. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused nationwide by invasive species go as high as $137 billion. Because of the system of canals connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean, there are no physical barriers to block the spread of invasive species, making the Great Lakes highly vulnerable. Because of the frequency of ships entering into the Great Lakes, though, our region is often ``ground zero,'' and once an exotic species establishes itself, it is almost impossible to eradicate and sometimes difficult to prevent from moving throughout the nation. Therefore, prevention is the key to controlling new introductions. All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the $137 billion annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Democratic leader yield just for some questions?

Mr. LEVIN. This administration has blown hot and cold when it comes to policy relative to North Korea. I just have one final question. The Democratic leader points out just how confusing a policy it is, not just for North Korea but for our own allies. Our ally with the most at stake on the Korean peninsula is South Korea. They could be destroyed if there is a miscalculation. Their capital is within range of tens of thousands of artillery of North Korea. On March 6, 2001, on the eve of a summit between then South Korean President Kim Jong-Il and President Bush, Secretary of State Powell said we plan to engage with North Korea and to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off. Within 24 hours was the Secretary of State's statement that we were going to engage with North Korea and pick up where the Clinton administration left off because the Clinton administration obtained the framework agreement that resulted in the canning of that very material which is so dangerous which contains plutonium. Within 24 hours, at the summit the next day, President Bush basically said: We are not going to have any discussions with North Korea. We are not picking up where the Clinton administration left off. We do not trust North Korea. No kidding. That is a mild statement, that we do not trust North Korea. If we did not talk to people we did not trust, we would not be talking to half of the world, including some of the most dangerous people in the world. Talking to people does not mean we are going to reward anything. It simply means they will hear directly, eyeball to eyeball, from us as to what our concerns are, and also why we do not threaten them, and why, if they will terminate their nuclear program, they can rest assured they will get an agreement from us that there is not going to be any active aggression against them. The blowing hot and cold, the erratic policy, the undermining not just of our own Secretary of State 24 hours after he said we would continue a policy, but undermining our South Korean allies with so much at stake, it seems to me has contributed to a very uncertain policy on the Korean peninsula, has sowed the seeds of confusion, and fueled and contributed to the paranoia that already existed in spades in North Korea. I have been to Yongbyon, the place in North Korea where they were canning those fuel rods, where they had sealed them. I don't know that any other Member of the Congress got there, but I got there a couple years ago. I watched the International Atomic Energy Agency as they were sealing those fuel rods. That was a very positive thing to watch, to actually see, under IAEA inspection and supervision, those incredibly dangerous nuclear materials being canned instead of threatening to the rest of the world as potential proliferated material, to actually see it put under the supervision of the IAEA. That is now out the window. We are starting from scratch. I understate my feelings on the matter when I say the Senator, the Democratic leader here, has so accurately stated the fact that we have a problem. Step 1 is to recognize we indeed have a crisis. Step 2 is not just to consult with allies but to seriously consider what they recommend when they talk about having direct engagement with the North Koreans. I thank the Democratic leader for his constant determination to keep this Korean peninsula crisis in front of us. We cannot lose sight of it. It is a greater threat than Iraq because in North Korea you have a known proliferator who has removed the inspectors and who has nuclear material which could be so easily distributed, shipped, or sold to people who could do great harm with it. I thank my friend from South Dakota.

Mr. LEVIN. In addition to looking a problem square in the eye and not sugarcoating it, if we are going to solve it, another part of the administration's platform relative to Korea, or approach to the Korean problem, is to say that the multilateral approach is the right approach. I am always glad to hear when the administration is willing to work multilaterally. I have been a critic of the administration because their unilateral rhetoric activities, it seems to me, have been counterproductive in many parts of the world. So whenever the administration talks about a multilateral approach or consulting with allies and friends, that is good news. But when they do the consultation, when they talk to South Korea, both its former President and its new President, as well as when they talk to China, as well as when they talk to Japan, as well as when they talk to other allies in the area, they are told the same thing. When they do use the multilateral approach, they are told: Engage in direct discussions with North Korea. As a matter of fact, the representative of the new President of South Korea, the special envoy of new President Roh, visited us. His name is Dr. Chyung, and he visited with us on February 3. That was, again, the open advice, he said, of the South Korean Government, is to have the United States talk directly with North Korea so that they can hear from us what our concerns are; so that both sides can avoid any kind of miscalculations; so that we do not fuel the paranoia this isolated regime has. They are paranoid. They are isolated. They actually believe we might strike them with one of our preemptive strikes. They actually believe it. So the advice we are getting when we talk to our allies and follow this multilateral approach is engage with North Korea, and yet we refuse to do so. I am wondering whether the Senator would agree that it is not only important that we consult with allies, not necessarily follow the advice but at least give serious consideration to the advice they give us when they talk to us about a direct engagement with North Korea to avoid miscalculation, so that the North can hear directly from us what our major concerns are?

Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator aware of a statement which was made before us--I do not know how he would be, but let me brief him on it. We had the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in front of the Armed Services Committee a couple of days ago, and we asked him whether or not in his judgment there was a crisis on the Korean peninsula because of the actions of North Korea in removing these seals from the spent fuel, eliminating the cameras and kicking out the inspectors. Even though the administration is unwilling to put the label ``crisis'' on what is going on on the Korean peninsula, Admiral Jacoby was more than willing to say, yes, this is a crisis. I am wondering if the Democratic leader would agree that part of the problem that we have in dealing with the North Korean situation is the unwillingness to see it for what it is, which is a major proliferation threat when there is a country that has been the world's greatest proliferator, including Libya and Iran, missiles and missile technology, when there is a country with a nuclear program that they acknowledge removes the inspectors from its country, whether or not that would represent progress if we could just at least get the administration to acknowledge what the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency says, which is that we have a crisis on the Korean peninsula?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for one question?

Mr. LEVIN. We have heard now with some regularity from the administration that they have no idea, no estimate as to what the cost of the war with Iraq will be, nor what the aftermath would cost; in other words, assuming there is a war, assuming that we occupy Iraq with or without others. According to General Shinseki, that could actually involve up to 100,000 troops there for some unlimited period of time. But even if they disagree with that, which apparently some members of the Pentagon do, we have not been able to obtain--and they claim there is none--an estimate of the cost of the aftermath of a war with Iraq at the same time that they are asking us to put in place an additional tax cut. Does it not strike my good friend from Nevada as being irresponsible to put into place tax cuts with huge costs to the Treasury when we are likely on the verge of a war which has no particular estimated cost, and then the aftermath of that war, which could last years, in turn also has no estimated cost? Does it not strike the Senator from Nevada as simply not being the responsible thing to do to be imposing or putting into place tax reductions which means losses to the Treasury, when we are right on the verge of potential expenditures which could be literally hundreds of billions of dollars over a reasonably short period of time?

Mr. LEVIN. And the answer we get is there is no way to know with certainty. These specifics are simply not available. There are too many imponderables. That is true, there are clearly some uncertainties. But it seems obvious to me the planners at the Pentagon must have some range of time or else there is no exit strategy, or else it is forever. Previous administrations have been criticized for not having exit strategies, not having estimates in time, for making their estimate too short: They will be home by Christmas. But that is no excuse for not having some range--that we will be there from 1 to 3 years according to the best estimate. The worst case scenario is X number of years, best case scenario is such and such. The best case scenario is we won't have problems with the Kurds or the Shia will not be attacking the Sunni. The worst case scenario is we will have those kinds of civil wars. There are best case and worst case scenarios which allow planners who are working actually on estimated costs and exit strategies to come up with some kind of an estimate upon which we can base future resources and expenditures of this Nation.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to speak about the very budget document that the Senator from Nevada and I have been discussing, perhaps in an indirect way. I wish to share some thoughts with the Senate about the proposed budget for 2004, which the President has now sent to Congress. As always, I wanted to see where the President's priorities were--not in sound bites, but the actual nitty-gritty numbers in the budget document. While every budget request is important, with the economy sputtering the way it is and with huge Federal deficits looming and critical domestic and international issues unresolved, particularly when we are facing the potential of a war and a very lengthy and complicated, expensive aftermath to that war, this budget requires special attention. I have been keenly disappointed by what this attention revealed. The President's budget would do exactly what he recently said he did not want to do, which was to pass our problems along to the next generation. The President made a very eloquent statement in the State of the Union Address, saying that we are not going to pass our problems along to the next generation. But when you look at the details of the budget, that is precisely what this budget request does. By the administration's own calculations, this budget would have us run a deficit of over a trillion dollars for the next 5 years, including record-setting deficits of over $300 billion for this year and next. Now, the contrast here between this projection of deficit and the $5.5 trillion 10-year surplus that was projected in January of 2001 is simply stunning. That contrast between just what 2 years ago was projected for our economy--a $5.5 trillion surplus--now there are projections of deficits upon deficits upon deficits--a projected deficit of over a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. The administration's plan estimates a non-Social Security deficit totaling over $2.5 trillion to the year 2008, which would leave us with an additional debt of $5 trillion in 2008, which is 150 times greater than what was projected just in the year 2001. Why such dire fiscal predictions? First, while the tax cut in the year 2001 played a huge part in putting us into the current deficit ditch, the President's call for an additional $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts--most of which disproportionately benefits upper income folks-- will help ensure that we not only stay in the deficit ditch, which we are back into, but that it will be a deep deficit ditch. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recognized the danger of such cuts when he spoke of the importance of curbing the deficit, not increasing it. That perhaps came as a surprise to some people in the administration who were looking to Alan Greenspan to give support to the tax cut proposal and minimize, they hoped, the impact of deficits on future economies. That is not what Chairman Greenspan did. He straightforwardly recognized the danger of the tax cuts when he spoke of the importance of reducing deficits and not increasing deficits. Mr. President, I see the Democratic leader is in the Chamber. I withhold the remainder of my comments at this time because he has a very important message relative to North Korea, and I wish to participate with him in a colloquy and presentation. So I withhold the remainder of my comments relative to the President's budget at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I wasn't aware of the Senator's remarks, but I was aware of the poll.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes, or at least a range on what is the worst case scenario and what is the best case scenario. I cannot believe the planners at the Pentagon and the OMB do not have a range. If they don't have a range, it would be irresponsible because how in heaven's name can the administration then say that we can afford a tax cut of the size they are proposing, when we have an impending demand for resources in a war that could be lengthy, costly, and then the aftermath could be lengthy and costly? It borders on the reckless, in terms of an economy, to say we don't have an estimate, we don't know whether or not it is going to be $20 billion, $40 billion, $100 billion--we don't have a range; yet they are trying to persuade a majority of the Congress that we ought to shrink the resources coming into the Government at the same time we are on the verge of war and the aftermath of a war, which doesn't have any estimated length, any estimated cost, and no troop estimate. We were given about a 200,000 estimate. Well, that is too high. OK, what is the ceiling that is more realistic to the people who say 200,000 is too high? We are completely devoid of that. What we are not devoid of, though, is the effort to shrink resources to this Government through a tax cut, which has a number of problems to it. One of them is that when we are facing what we are in terms of expenditures, it is not the responsible thing to do.

Mr. LEVIN. Just to add one further thought, it seems to me it would be absolutely irresponsible not to have a range or an estimate of what the cost of a war would be in the best and worst case scenarios.

Mr. LEVIN. He did.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate World Medical Relief, Inc. for 50 years of distinguished service to needy individuals in the United States and around the world. On March 8, 2003, staff members, supporters, and beneficiaries of World Medical Relief, Inc. services will gather in my home state of Michigan for the ``Miracles of Mercy Gala 2003.'' This event will commemorate the commitment and dedication that World Medical Relief, Inc. has provided to the sick and needy. For 50 years, World Medical Relief, Inc. has been a driving force for medical support both in my home state of Michigan and internationally. It is noteworthy that the success and accomplishments of this program today are in part the direct result of the unwavering devotion of founder Irene M. Auberlin. The hard work and perseverance of Mrs. Auberlin is now reflected by the many individuals and groups that continue to provide assistance to those most in need. Today, the program serves over 1,500 people in the metropolitan Detroit area and 125 nations worldwide. I would like to congratulate William N. Genematas for receiving this year's Irene M. Auberlin Service Above Self Award for his long-time dedication to World Medical Relief, Inc. I also would like to commend both the Ford Motor Company Fund for its continued support of the Senior Prescription Program and the Christian Association of Medical Mission for their international aid efforts in developing nations. World Medical Relief, Inc. and its members deserve both our respect and gratitude. I am sure that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in offering our congratulations to World Medical Relief, Inc. and its members as they celebrate 50 years of distinguished service.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article from the February 14, 2003, Los Angeles Times entitled ``New Revolver Too Big For 'Dirty' Harry.'' The article discusses a new .50 caliber handgun manufactured by the Smith and Wesson Corporation. The 500 model, the biggest handgun currently in production, is 15 inches long, weighs 4.5 pounds, and uses a .50 caliber Magnum Smith and Wesson bullet that packs a muzzle force of 2,600 foot-pounds. The bullet is half an inch wide and is more powerful than comparable ammunition because it is much longer and contains more gun powder. According to a Violence Policy Center expert cited in the article, the gun's cartridge has about twice the muzzle energy of most rounds for common semiautomatic assault weapons, such as the AR-15, a civilian version of the military's M-16. In fact, the new gun packs a punch powerful enough to stop a charging bear in its tracks. A Smith and Wesson representative acknowledges that the company hopes the gun will help Smith and Wesson win back market share lost when the company agreed to a number of steps to improve gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Smith and Wesson's decision to produce the .50 caliber handgun represents a step backward in the effort to improve gun safety. Not only has the company apparently scrapped its plan to work with the federal government to take sensible steps to make guns safer and keep guns from getting into the wrong hands, but the company seems to be headed in the opposite direction by creating a handgun that is reported to have double the power of most assault rifles. Last year, I cosponsored the Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act, a bill which would change the way .50 caliber sniper rifles are regulated by placing them under the requirements of the National Firearms Act. This bill would subject the sniper rifles to the same regimen of registration and background checks as other weapons of war, such as machine guns. Unfortunately, the new Smith and Wesson .50 caliber handgun would not be affected by this legislation. However, both the .50 caliber handgun and sniper rifle are simply too powerful to be on the streets. Congress must take a long, hard look at these potentially lethal weapons. [From the L.A. Times, Feb. 14, 2003] A Powerful New Revolver Is Drawing Fire Already (By Ralph Frammolino and Steve Berry) Even the most ardent firearm lovers acknowledge that Smith & Wesson's new .50-caliber Magnum revolver is more gun than anyone needs. It has double the power of most assault rifles in America. Its kick can send a grown man reeling; a single bullet can drop a grizzly.; It is so heavy and long that police say no- criminal would dare try to hide it in his waistband. It will cost as much $989. And gun buyers across the country can't wait to get their hands on it. ``The initial reaction has been even stronger than we had anticipated, so we're ramping up production to meet the demand,'' Bob Scott, Smith & Wesson Corp.'s chairman, said from the 2003 Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show in Orlando, Fla. ``Certainly, in our booth it's the product that has created the most buzz.'' The Springfield, Mass-based company, creator of the .44 Magnum of ``Dirty Harry'' fame, unveiled its new offering Thursday as the world most powerful commercially produced revolver. Executives for the country's second-largest firearms manufacturer said they hoped the gun would help regain lost market share by generating excitement among an important, albeit niche, market of big-game hunters, collectors and recreational target shooters. But even before the weapon's wide distribution, scheduled for next month, forces on both sides of the firearms debate are taking aim at its social effects. Gun control groups condemned the Model 500 as an example of the industry's ``deadlier-is-better'' mentality, predicting that the new model would soon find its way to the streets. ``A hunting weapon? that's a joke,'' said Luis Tolley, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. ``What we have here is a weapon that's designed to appeal to people who just want to make a bigger hole in whatever they're shooting at. And, hopefully, they're not living next door to me.'' Said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center: ``This gun is not being made for hunters in Africa. It's being made for bored white gun owners in America. Why are they putting so much firepower into people's hands?'' The real question, say some gun experts, is: Why are people demanding it? Adam Firestone, editor of Cruffler.com, a Web site for gun collectors, said he viewed demand for Smith & Wesson's new product as more of an outgrowth of America's obsession with size and status, rather than an indicator of growing paranoia over crime or homeland security. ``How many people do you know have Lincoln Navigators or Hummer H2s?'' he said. ``We are phenomenal at buying beyond our needs. And with regard to the firearm industry, if it is bigger, if it is more expensive . . . we will line up around the corner to buy the darned thing, regardless of the fact that there may be six other guns that cost half as much and do the job just as well.'' Smith & Wesson executives hope that the new offering, one of nine new models introduced at the Florida gun show Thursday, will put it back in the good graces of a gun-buying constituency that remains sore over the company's decision in 2000 to sign agreements with the federal government that promised to put locks on all firearms it sold. That backlash served as a double whammy, taking away sales from Smith & Wesson even as the entire industry was in decline. ``We're in the process of winning back market share or business that was lost as a result of negative reaction by consumers to the decisions by the previous ownership,'' said Scott, the company chairman. Smith & Wesson has built its reputation by building bigger guns. The .357 Magnum, introduced in 1935, was considered a breakthrough because of its muzzle energy that delivered impact at 535 foot-pounds, said Roy G. Jinks, the company's historian. The weapon, developed at the behest of hunters, gained favor with police during the mobster era because it could shoot through a car's engine block, he said. In 1956, Smith & Wesson introduced the even more powerful .44 Magnum, the gun made famous years later by Clint Eastwood in his crime-fighting movies as ``Dirty'' Harry Callahan, a San Francisco cop. With Thursday's unveiling the company now leapfrogs ahead of its competitors, which had surpassed the .44 Magnum with more potent weapons. The Model 500 uses a bigger frame, takes a new .50 caliber Magnum Smith & Wesson bullet and packs a muzzle force of 2,600 foot-pounds. Though there are single-shot, custom pistols that use larger ammunition, the new gun is the largest production revolver or semiautomatic pistol. At .50-caliber, the bullet is about half an inch wide but is more powerful than other such ammunition because it is longer and can pack more powder, said Garen Wintemute, a gun expert and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis. He said the gun's cartridge has about twice the muzzle energy of most rounds for common semiautomatic assault weapons used in America, such as the AR-15, a civilian version of the military's M-16. Wintemute predicted that it would be a smash with gun enthusiasts who can order one with a barrel as long as 10 inches. One such enthusiast is Marc Halcon, owner of American Shooting Center in San Diego. He said the allure of the weapon ``has something to do with the artistry of creating a mechanism that will do something that no other will do. It's another step in science and engineering.'' On a personal level, Halcon said. ``I already own the most powerful handgun on the market, and if they build a more powerful one, then I want to buy it.'' Sam Paredes, executive director of the Gun Owners of California feels much the same. ``I can't wait to shoot one of these things,'' he said. Paredes acknowledged that the Model 500 could be portrayed as the ``boogeyman of all guns.'' He said its recoil would pack such a wallop that it would be virtually impossible for criminals to rely on it--a sentiment shared by Lt. Bruce Harris, the firing range master for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. ``It's a little tough to have one of those under your shirt,'' Harris said, adding that he didn't believe it would become the weapon of the street because ``gangbangers don't have $900 to spend on a Smith & Wesson revolver.'' Proposed legislation regulating the sale of .50 caliber rifles is scheduled for consideration in the state Assembly and the Los Angeles City Council, said Tolley of the Brady Campaign. But government officials said Thursday that they had no plans to include the new revolver in the restrictions. Still, Tolley said, his group will work to bring the Model 500 under some kind of control because, despite Smith & Wesson's intentions, the weapon is bound to end up in the wrong hands. ``They're marketing this weapon to people who get off on the idea that they have the biggest, baddest gun on the block,'' Tolley said. ``Unfortunately a number of them are going to juvenile gang members and people who have an unhealthy fascination with fire arms.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have joined with Senators Reid, Durbin, and Kennedy in introducing the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act of 2003. Over the past several years we have been hearing more and more about U.S. corporations using offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. One of the most egregious abuses is when a U.S. corporation reincorporates on paper in a tax haven and establishes a headquarters there when, in reality, its primary offices and production or service facilities remain right here in the United States. By opening shell headquarters in a tax haven like Bermuda, companies that got their start in this country, do most of their work here, and benefit from U.S. roads, banks, patents, computers, law enforcement, fair trade laws, its educated workforce, and much more, avoid contributing their fair share to pay for those benefits. Instead, these companies force the rest of America's taxpayers to shoulder the tax burden they have shed. This corporate conduct mistreats the average American. It undercuts the U.S. corporations that do pay their taxes. It is unfair, it is founded on a deception, and it is time for Congress to put an end to it. It is time for Congress to say to these companies, if you want benefits, you need to stop avoiding your fiscal responsibility with the sham of appearing to move. The list of companies that have undertaken the tax haven headquarters pretense now called ``corporate inversions'' is growing. The list currently includes such U.S. born companies as Fruit of the Loom, Ingersoll-Rand, and Tyco, although Tyco shareholders are trying to shame that company's management into giving up its Bermuda shenanigans. It is likely that this list of corporate inversions will continue to grow unless Congress acts to close the tax loopholes that currently permit U.S. companies to benefit from their gamesmanship and avoid federal taxes at the expense of average taxpayers and good corporate citizens. That is why we are introducing the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act of 2003, the same bill Representative Neal introduced in the House last Congress which garnered over 150 co-sponsors. This bill would deny tax benefits to U.S. companies that invert by continuing to treat them as U.S. companies for tax purposes. This bill would not only level the playing field between these companies and their U.S. competitors, it would also save other U.S. taxpayers from having to pick up an estimated $4 billion in tax revenues over the next 10 years. U.S. corporations that reincorporate in tax havens typically reduce their U.S. tax liability in at least two ways. First, by setting up headquarters in a tax haven, the company can eliminate its liability for U.S. taxes on passive and other forms of income earned in foreign jurisdictions. For instance, the company no longer would have to pay U.S. tax on the interest, dividends and royalty payments received by its foreign affiliates which would otherwise have been taxed under Subpart F of the U.S. tax code. By creating a new, so- called ``parent'' company in a tax haven jurisdiction, the company's obligations under Subpart F disappear, and the passive and other forms of income that would otherwise be treated as Subpart F income subject to U.S. taxation is no longer taxed by the United States. Second, companies that pretend to move their headquarters to a tax haven typically also use tax strategies to shelter income actually earned in the United States. By deflecting this income to the shell parent located in a low or no tax jurisdiction, these companies avoid paying U.S. taxes on income earned right here in the U.S. Unlike other corporate inversion proposals under consideration, our bill would deny all corporate inverters both of these sought-after U.S. tax benefits in their entirety. Corporate inverters would be treated as U.S. companies for U.S. tax purposes, thereby denying them all of the tax benefits sought by their inversion transactions. This approach hopefully will put an end to companies pretending to move to Bermuda or any other tax haven in order to duck corporate taxes at the expense of honest taxpayers left holding the bag. Under this bill, a company would be deemed to be inverted, and therefore be treated as a U.S. company, if: 80 percent of the shareholders in the previous U.S. company are shareholders of the new company; and the new company acquires substantially all of the property of the old company; or between 50 and 80 percent of the shareholders in the previous U.S. company are shareholders of the new company; the new company acquires substantially all of the property of the old company; the new company conducts no substantial business activity in the new jurisdiction; and the stock is principally traded in the U.S. These rules would apply to inversions that occurred after September 11, 2001. Rather than let companies that inverted previously enjoy future tax benefits they do not deserve, the amendment would give companies that inverted prior to September 11, 2001 an opportunity to incorporate back in the United States. If a company failed to do so, the U.S. would begin treating it as an inverted company beginning in 2004 and deny it the future tax breaks sought from its inversion. We should not let companies off the hook that try to avoid paying U.S. taxes by setting up a computer in a tax haven jurisdiction. Now is the time to close this corporate expatriation loophole. I hope my colleagues will join with us in enacting this legislation into law this year.