Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I believe the only request either pending, or perhaps already granted, is to withhold reading of the amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. This amendment was presented to us this morning. I think we should make an effort to see if we can't bring this amendment somehow or other into compliance with the Budget Act so we can accomplish the important provisions that are in this amendment. This is a goal which has been sought on a bipartisan basis to try to improve the provision of health care services to our retirees. I think it is in all of our interests to see if we can't find a way that we can make this come into compliance with the Budget Act. I am particularly sensitive to the Budget Act's provisions. I am not sure Senator Domenici is with us today. I believe he was absent during the picture, for reasons with which we are familiar. In that case, I am wondering whether or not, because of the Budget Act implications of this amendment, the Senator might be willing to set this aside so we can determine if there are ways of achieving these important goals consistent with the Budget Act.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder, is this the amendment to which the Senator made reference this morning?

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will withhold on any unanimous consent request relative to that, I am trying to see if we have been informed of it. Of course, the Senator has a right to offer it.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I just want to be clear that the Senator from Washington would be recognized prior to Senator Kerrey, and that that time would not come out of any time indicated.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized for 8 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEVIN. Is my understanding correct that this amendment will be set aside temporarily for opening statements to be given?

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3173, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. We used to flatten cans. After we were done with a can of food, we would take off the other end that hadn't been opened, put it in a box, flatten the can, and carry in the boxes of tins.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that narrow point, this language was significantly amended in committee, if I may say so. It wasn't offered in that form. It was amended. This language here is not the issue. The issue is that the amendment of the Senator from Virginia says that this President and the next President cannot take an action until after a certain action is taken at the end of 2001. That was never discussed in committee. It is not part----

Mr. LEVIN. Oh, it can be?

Mr. LEVIN. All the way down to the kids.

Mr. LEVIN. The modification I was referring to was not a technical modification to comply with the unanimous consent agreement. The modification I was referring to is whether the Senator from Virginia is intending to modify any of the language relative to that 2001 date.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, we just need a few minutes to look at it. We just received it.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Bob Kerrey also wanted to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. LEVIN. So true.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. It will be presented in a ceremony this month at the White House. That was something Senator Inouye was not even aware of until he read about it.

Mr. LEVIN. I saw letters of President Roosevelt the other day thanking people for their donations--I think it was of telescopes; I am not sure. It was something which people just put into the war effort, either scrapped or used in some way. This is a special tribute to those of our colleagues, including yourself, who were in World War II. I know you are going to list them. But as this honor roll of heroes is read by the Senator from Virginia, I think we are all going to stand very proud that we have so many Members still in this body who served in World War II and, of course, many who did serve in this body who served in World War II who are also being honored. Senator Dole, of course, is very much in the lead in this effort, but so many others came before us who are currently in this body who served. How many are there who served in this body?

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEVIN. My understanding is the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Virginia would have to make a decision on this because it is his amendment. But my understanding is that the decision of the President to lower the force structure--what he negotiates is a totally different issue. We are not limiting what the President can negotiate in terms of a treaty which will then be submitted to the Senate. We are talking about a force structure which has to be maintained, subject to being changed either by treaty when ratified becomes the law of the land, or by a subsequent law. What this language does, as I understand it, and I think I partly agree with the Senator from Arizona, is that he could not lower the force structure until that Quadrennial Defense Review and Nuclear Posture Review are submitted. I think that is the way the amendment reads. However, I think I agree with what the Senator from Virginia suggested before, which is if that Quadrennial Defense Review and Nuclear Posture Review is submitted before December of 2001, at that point this waiver could be exercised by a President.

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

Mr. LEVIN. What is interesting to me is that there has been an argument from the Senator from Virginia and our good friend from Arizona that there should be a review; until there is a review, there should not be a reduction in our force from START I levels.

Mr. LEVIN. There was a review in 1994--1994. In 1994, the START II level was deemed to be adequate by the chiefs. There was a nuclear posture review in 1994. Then, in 1996, we come along and say you can't go to START II levels. You have to stay with START I levels, we said, by law--by law. So we had this thoughtful Nuclear Posture Review that took place in 1994, but we won't let a Commander in Chief implement that Nuclear Posture Review, which was thoughtfully carried out and which supported the START II levels in 1994 because we came along a year and a half later and said you have to stick with the START I levels. Now the chiefs are very much opposed to that requirement in law that restricts us to START I levels, the higher levels, and doesn't allow a Commander in Chief to go to the START II levels. They have written us, and they have testified. Here is General Shelton: I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that mandates specific force structure levels. General Shelton: The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to consider options that will reduce the strategic forces to the levels recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. That was 1994. He went on: The START I legislative restraint will need to be removed before we can pursue these options. Major costs will be incurred if we remain at START I levels. So we required that they stick at START I levels, in 1996. And then some of us now are critical of the Commander in Chief for not going to a different force structure. We are saying: Well, that's the law. We passed the law. We require him to stay at the START I levels. And now some of us criticize him for trying to do something precipitously, without adequate study. There was an adequate study. It was called a Nuclear Posture Review in 1994, which said the START II levels were adequate for the security of this country. We will not let him go to the START II levels. Then, as my good friend from Nebraska points out, in 1997 there was an additional review. I do not think any of us want to suggest the chiefs did not do a thoughtful review in 1997, saying we could safely go, in a START III agreement, to a lower level than START II. But we are stuck at START I. We are at START I levels. Now we are saying we will let the next President go to a lower level than START I, but not this, because we want it to be thoughtful, when we had a thoughtful review in 1994. We will not let them go on. We had a thoughtful review in 1997 to which we won't let him go. Of course, it should be thoughtful. We have had two of them right in the Record, right before us, that we are saying, in the Kerrey amendment, to which we ought to allow a Commander in Chief to go. We have the Chiefs saying they want the option to go to the START II levels. Unless we say the chiefs do not act thoughtfully--and I do not think anybody in this Chamber wants to take that position--then it seems to me we should allow a Commander in Chief to go to the thoughtful Posture Review level of 1994 and the thoughtful 1997 level. So the first thing we need to do is interpret what this amendment means. I do not know if Senator Warner agrees with this, but I think Senator Kyl has suggested the way I phrased that interpretation was accurate. I would be asking a question, even though Senator Kerrey has the floor, of Senator Warner, whether he agrees with Senator Kyl's interpretation of the Warner amendment.