Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that also as a part of this colloquy be printed in the Record the letter from the U.S. Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel explaining why it is technologically impossible for him to incorporate at this time, with current software, all the items into the law. That is the problem; otherwise, I would be totally agreeable to having every single one of these items--the President's items and the add-ons by Congress--made part of the law. That is not a problem for me. However, technologically it cannot be done at this time. We ought to try to make sure it can be done promptly. I ask unanimous consent that the June 4, 2008, letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Now, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Vermont the following question: whether the Senator would be willing to proceed in morning business.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to extend my congratulations to Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church in Grand Rapids, MI, as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. Since its inaugural mass on September 20, 1908, Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church has been devoted to serving the many diverse needs within the Grand Rapids community, and I am pleased to join in celebrating this important milestone. In the late 1800s, as the Italian-American population in Grand Rapids continued to grow, there began an earnest search within this immigrant community for a place to worship that would respond to their specific needs. Led by Father Salvatore Cianci and without a formal structure in which to conduct mass, the congregation was established and gathered in the basement of St. Andrew's Cathedral in Grand Rapids in 1908 to celebrate its first mass. With this mass, the congregation of Our Lady of Sorrows began their spiritual journey by seeking to minister to the roughly 75 families that lived in the area at the time. During the early part of the 20th century, Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church continued to grow and to establish a presence in the community. Throughout both the Great Depression and World War II, they worked diligently to create a permanent residence for their church community. The church initiated fundraising efforts to help support the purchase of a permanent location, as well as to support their many community outreach efforts. After nearly 40 years in temporary locations, their determination and persistence was rewarded with the dedication of the new church structure on April 14, 1957. Through the many challenges and changes the church and the larger community endured, Our Lady of Sorrows has remained committed to its church family. The Grand Rapids parish is presently home to more than 250 families of diverse backgrounds, including a growing Hispanic population. During their distinguished 100-year history, they established an elementary school; constructed a new convent, rectory, and church; and established a local scholarship for anyone living within the boundaries of the parish. Today, the church serves as an example of an inclusive community and has reached out to people of diverse backgrounds, facilitating an appreciation for different cultures. Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church is truly an important part of the rich history of Grand Rapids. Their influence and service to the community is apparent to the many that have benefitted from the church's spiritual and outreach efforts. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church on 100 years of dedicated service to the Grand Rapids community, and I wish them much success as they embark on another 100-year journey.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Could we have a time set for the Senator's presentation? Can he give us an idea about how long he would be?

Mr. LEVIN. That is helpful. I wonder if Senator Dorgan could be recognized for 15 minutes. I will ask unanimous consent to extend it, if necessary, but it will give us an idea how we can proceed, and then I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Dorgan, the Chair recognize the managers.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that we will then return to the Vitter amendment? I ask unanimous consent that we then return to the Vitter amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Vitter amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask that Senator Leahy's amendment No. 5323 be considered.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the amendment.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is the pending amendment now the Leahy amendment No. 5323?

Mr. LEVIN. I don't know of any further debate.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand, under the current order, we would now be moving to consideration of the Vitter amendment regarding missile defense for 2 hours of debate. Those who are interested in that amendment are urged to come to the floor so we could begin that debate. But at this time I will yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment that appropriately recognizes the United States is now engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without a formal declaration of war. The amendment takes the appropriate step of modifying the statute of limitations to cases in which the use of force has been authorized without a formal declaration of war. I very much welcome--and I am sure Senator Leahy does as well--the support of the Senator from Alabama. I do not know of anybody else who wants to speak on this amendment. Unless the Senator from Alabama does, I will suggest then that we move on to the next amendment. I understand there is going to be a unanimous consent request that may interrupt that flow, but before we get to that, if the Senator from Alabama knows of no other--first of all, let me ask the Senator whether he does know of any other speaker on the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator willing to have this amendment voice voted at this time?

Mr. LEVIN. All right. If we could get the yeas and nays on this amendment so we could move on. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Vitter amendment for a number of reasons. Let me begin by saying we have already placed into our bill more money for the areas that the Vitter amendment would add additional money for than was requested by the administration. In other words, in these areas--terminal high-altitude area defense, the THAAD Program; the Aegis ballistic missile defense, DMD, and its Standard Missile-3 interceptor--we have added money in our committee to the budget request. So this is not restoring cuts in these programs. If the Vitter amendment were passed, it would add additional funds to programs that we on the committee unanimously already have added additional funds to above the administration's request. I would like to go through these one by one. For the THAAD system, the administration's budget requested $865 million. The committee bill, approved by all committee members, added $115 million. The Targets Program, which provides targets for flight tests, the budget request was $665 million. The Armed Services Committee fully funded the administration request. The Vitter amendment adds money the administration is not requesting. The administration is not requesting the money that the Vitter amendment adds to the committee bill. Next, the Aegis BMD Program, the budget request was nearly $1.2 billion. The committee bill would authorize an additional $100 million for systems improvement and additional procurement. The Vitter amendment adds to what the committee already added to the administration request--$74 million on top of the committee increase, $54 million to convert two additional ships and $30 million for technology improvements. So point No. 1, in the areas to which Vitter amendment would add funds, the committee has either fully funded the administration request or we have added to the administration request. The administration is not requesting additional funds in the areas to which the Vitter amendment adds funds. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2, how does the Vitter amendment pay for these add-ons? What it does is it allows the Secretary of Defense to cut $271 million from any part of the Defense Department budget except for the specified accounts which we are not authorizing the Secretary of Defense to cut. But except for those very precise, specific, enumerated exceptions, the Secretary of Defense is given carte blanche to cut any program which the Secretary of Defense wants to cut. That is an abdication of congressional authority. It is a serious abdication. We have not done this. Where we have put weapons systems money in, frequently at the request of Members of this body, going over this at great length in committee, we have not given the Secretary of Defense a blank check to cut whatever procurement programs he might want to cut in order to pay for other add-ons that are offered on the floor of the Senate. Now, when the Senator from Florida gave examples where these cuts could come from, the Senator from Louisiana denied those cuts could come from these examples. But the Senator from Florida is right. So I am going to repeat the examples, and then we can debate later on whether the Senator from Louisiana is correct or the Senator from Florida is correct in terms of the amendment which has been offered. These are some of the examples the Senator from Florida used where if the Secretary of Defense wanted to make cuts in programs, in his discretion, he would be given the authority to do it. He could cut funds for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. He could wipe out money for operations of the B-52. He could cut money for advance procurement funds for the F-22. He could reduce the Patriot missile request. These are areas where the committee has added funds and where if the Vitter amendment is adopted, the Defense Secretary could, at his discretion, make cuts in these program or any other program in his discretion. It is a serious abdication of congressional budget authority to say the Secretary of Defense may make cuts in programs wherever he wants, with the specific two exceptions that are enumerated in the Vitter amendment. So we ought to defeat the Vitter amendment, No. 1, because it adds funds not requested, No. 2, it adds funds to accounts we have already added funds to, and, No. 3, because of the broad authority that would give the Secretary of Defense to pay for these add-ons by cutting other programs in the discretion of the Secretary of Defense--a very serious abdication of our budget power and something we should not do. So I will oppose the Vitter amendment and support the position, the argument of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, who is the chairman of our subcommittee, who earlier today made the presentation in chief, as we would say in a court, against the Vitter amendment. I yield the floor now. I would ask unanimous consent--if my friend from Alabama might hear this--that if we go into a quorum call now the time be charged equally against both sides on the Vitter amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the unanimous consent request that any time during this quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Vitter amendment be set aside, and that when we return to the Vitter amendment, the Senator from Louisiana have 10 minutes on his side, and that the full 19 minutes remain on our side, the opponents, and with that understanding we move to the regular order, which I believe would be the Senator from Florida offering his amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now move off the bill and go to morning business and that Senator Graham be recognized for 3 minutes and then Senator Sanders be recognized for up to 20 minutes. I want Senator Lieberman to hear that request.

Mr. LEVIN. That Senator Sanders be recognized for up to 20 minutes and Senator Lieberman be recognized for up to 20 minutes. That is my unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jamie Lynch, Nathan Buniva, and Thomas Barlow, congressional fellows and staff in the office of Senator Jim Webb, be allowed privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 3001.