Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I voted, yesterday, in favor of the Ensign amendment to deny credit toward Social Security benefits claimed in violation of the Social Security Act. This would deny benefits to people, including undocumented workers, who have, in the words of the act, ``willfully, knowingly, and with the intent to deceive used false Social Security numbers.'' The Ensign amendment was more carefully focused on denying benefits based on illegal use of a fake Social Security number, unlike previous Ensign amendments which I did not support. Yesterday's Ensign amendment requires the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Social Security benefits for work performed by any individual using a Social Security account number which was not his, in violation of section 208 of the Social Security Act at 42 U.S.C. 408. The Ensign amendment was adopted yesterday by the Senate. This amendment differs from a previous amendment offered by Senator Ensign in the 109th Congress, which could have harmed senior citizens and other individuals who may have made an honest error. That amendment was rejected by the Senate. In July of 2007, Senator Ensign proposed an amendment to the College Cost Reduction Act which could have led to a highly unfair loss of benefits to naturalized citizens or others who are legally present. The provisions of that amendment would have posed great problems because it would have denied Social Security benefits to legally naturalized citizens, for instance, unless the Social Security Administration could affirmatively determine that the individual was legally authorized to work. This amendment would have placed an unmanageable burden on the Social Security Administration and seniors who have been legally present for decades, who could have unfairly lost their benefits. This amendment also failed in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and cooperation in ensuring that the Senate continues its commitment to training workers through the Workforce Investment Act. I ask for their continued support on this important issue in conference. I, too, am pleased to see that my colleagues have rejected efforts to pull these critical funds away from States that are attempting to plan and use them for their own specific workforce development needs. The Workforce Investment Act provides many opportunities to workers in my home State of Michigan who have been laid off and are seeking a new start. The cuts proposed by President Bush could have cost my State close to $11 million; that is 7,500 workers who would not receive training and several local workforce agencies that could potentially close their doors and no longer serve Michigan communities. This cut would have cost workers in all of our States. The loss of benefits and services during hardship is too great a burden for us to place on our citizens' backs. I want to thank the comittee for rejecting efforts to drain this program of needed dollars. The Governors will thank us, the State and local workforce agencies will thank us, and most importantly, the worker who is trying to better himself or herself and gain employment will be able to do so because of our actions here.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senators as well. Community Innovations for Aging in Place

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Senate fiscal year 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies appropriations bill. This bipartisan bill increases funding for many important programs including some that aim to improve our Nation's innovation and manufacturing infrastructure. American companies can compete with any company in the world if we have a level playing field, but the problem is that our manufacturing companies often are not competing against foreign companies, but foreign governments. Two of the programs that have helped to give a boost to our manufacturing companies are the Advanced Technology Program, recently renamed the Technology Innovation Program, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Unfortunately, the administration has cut funding for these programs in recent years. This bill turns that trend around by providing the necessary increased funding in fiscal year 2008 for both of these important programs. The bill increases funding for the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST, which administers the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. I have long fought for the Advanced Technology Program, and I believe we have achieved an important victory today. The ATP enables U.S. companies to develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies that allows our country to compete against foreign rivals who often employ large and effective programs to support their industries. The ATP invests Federal R&D resources in public- private partnerships, enhancing U.S. competitiveness by accelerating development, commercialization, and application of promising technologies, and by improving manufacturing techniques of small and medium-sized manufacturers. During Senate consideration of H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007, the bill that authorizes NIST programs, I worked to build support for a more robust ATP program. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairman offered to support a funding increase for the ATP in the conference committee between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and with his support we were able to achieve a stronger ATP-like program. I was pleased that the final legislation that was signed into law adopted the Technology Innovation Program. This is a victory for innovation and manufacturing because the TIP Program is basically an improved version of the ATP program which retains many of ATP's best features while modifying the program to address past criticism. The TIP program will continue the excellent work that has been undertaken by ATP. Like the ATP, it will continue to bridge the gap between the research lab and the marketplace by providing cost-shared funding to small and medium-sized companies conducting high-risk R&D with broad commercial and societal benefits that would probably not be undertaken by the private sector because the risk is too great or because rewards to the private company would be insufficient to make it worth the investment. We have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In the face of these losses and strong global economic competition, we should be doing all we can to promote programs that help create jobs and strengthen the technological innovation of American companies. I believe the TIP program is one way to give American companies resources they need in the important fight for American manufacturing to remain globally competitive. TIP allows for greater industry input in the operation of the program, allows university participation for the first time, and requires the lead grant recipient to be a small or medium-sized firm to address past criticism that grants went to large companies--joint ventures between smaller and larger companies will still be allowed. I am pleased this bill strongly supports the ATP/TIP program. A portion of the new funds must go toward funding new awards which guarantees there will be a new competition each year to fund high-risk groundbreaking research by some of America's most nimble and innovative small and medium-sized technology companies. The bill also increases funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, MEP, providing $110 million in fiscal year 2008 to fund MEP centers and to fund a technology deployment pilot. The MEP co- funds a nationwide system of manufacturing support centers to assist small and midsized manufacturers modernize to compete in a demanding marketplace by providing technical assistance and helping small firms boost productivity, streamline operations, integrate new technologies and lower costs. The bill also provides important resources to combat illegal counterfeiting of America's innovation and products by providing an increase in funding for the FBI to enforce intellectual property laws and to the International Trade Administration, ITA, to improve enforcement of our trade agreements. Acknowledging the need to do more to fight against unfair foreign trade practices that result in our companies having to compete not against foreign companies but against foreign governments that are often illegally subsidizing their domestic industries at the expense of our industries, the bill provides important additional funding to the Department of Commerce's Import Administration which enforces U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. This is especially timely since the Commerce Department recently agreed it should apply our countervailing duty law to imports from China, a non-market economy, and as a result, an increase in the number of subsidy cases is expected. I requested, and the bill provides, $2 million for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is the only sanctuary designated in the Great Lakes, and it protects a significant collection of approximately 160 shipwrecks which span over a century of Great Lakes shipping history. The funding provided in this bill will be used for the completion of permanent displays for the facility's new visitor center as well as the acquisition of telepresence equipment. The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary has been in existence since 2000, and the visitors center was only recently constructed. Therefore, it is important that the sanctuary construct exhibits for the new visitors center that educates visitors on the maritime history of the Great Lakes. Additionally, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary will have telepresence to allow students in classrooms across the country as well as visitors to the sanctuary, to see the actual shipwrecks at Thunder Bay through underwater cameras. I am pleased that my amendment to enhance the FBI National Name Check Program was included in the bill. The FBI National Name Check Program is used to run background checks on many who apply for immigration benefits, and those seeking employment with the U.S. Government, as well as other checks requested by the National Security Agency, other Government agencies, and some private users. Many immigrants who are applying for adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, applying for naturalization, asylum or a waiver end up waiting for months or years for the completion of the name check that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, or other agencies request from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI has recognized the flaws in this program. In 2003, Robert J. Garrity, Jr., then Acting Assistant Director of the Records Management Division of the FBI stated before the House Committee on Government Reform that, ``[t]he name check delays have significant consequences to FBI customers and stakeholders. The delays impede hiring or clearing skilled workers; completing government contracts; student enrollment, and . . . clearing requested visas for business visits to the United States. More importantly than all of the foregoing, these processing delays can also diminish counterterrorism effectiveness.'' In the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, Ombudsman's 2007 Annual Report, Mr. Prakash Khatri, the USCIS Ombudsman, stated that ``the problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened'' since last year, with 93,358 more name check cases pending than last year for a total of 329,160 pending as of May 4, 2007. Around 31,000 cases have been pending for at least 33 months. This is unacceptable. If these individuals are a security threat, we must know that sooner rather than later. My amendment would help ensure that these important security checks are completed in a timely manner by requiring the FBI to report to Congress every year regarding progress made in improving the FBI's system of processing background checks and automating investigative files. This legislation restores vital law enforcement funding that has been decreasing for far too long. Although violent crime has increased over the past 25 years, the President has continued to propose reduced funding and the elimination of vital law enforcement programs. This bill appropriately restores that funding and reinforces our commitment to keeping our communities safe. For Michigan, the bill provides funding training programs for law enforcement personnel, computers for patrol vehicles and interoperable communications equipment. I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment that I cosponsored that increases the drug court appropriation to $40 million. Drug courts intervene and break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime. They place substance abusing offenders under strict court monitoring and community supervision, coupled with effective, long-term treatment services, and I am pleased that we have appropriated adequate funding to continue these vital services. The Senate has put together a responsible bill that funds the programs that our citizens rely on, in spite of the fact that the President has threatened to veto it. I am hopeful that these funding levels will remain intact in conference.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.a of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following is a list of items included in amendments to the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act at my request: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment number Item Requesting Senator ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2278.................................... Land Exchange in Detroit, MI.... Senator Levin 3006.................................... Former Nike Missile Site, Gross Senator Levin Ile, MI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. President, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.a of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following is a list of items included in amendments to the fiscal year 2008 Defense appropriations bill at my request: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment number Item Requesting Senator ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3162.................................... $6 million for Advanced Senator Levin Automotive Technology. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment offered by myself and Senator Stabenow to increase the budget of the Army's National Automotive Center by $6 million. The National Automotive Center, NAC, part of the U.S. Army Tank- Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center, works to support and leverage advancements by the automotive industry to improve military ground vehicles. The funds provided by our amendment will allow the NAC to help meet current and future automotive technology needs. These funds will support the development of new technologies that are critical to the success of the Future Combat Systems program and will help our military to meet the fuel efficiency goals that have been set by the Department of Defense, while improving the safety of military ground vehicles. I am pleased that the Senate adopted our amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend from Hawaii, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye. The bill before us includes two significant cuts to the President's budget request in the area of Army research and development on combat vehicle and automotive technology. The House-passed version of this bill and both the House and Senate-passed versions of the National Defense Authorization Act do not include these cuts. The first cut of $10 million eliminated funding for a fuel efficiency ground vehicle demonstrator, FED. This program is scheduled to be a 3- year effort by the ground vehicle experts at the U.S. Army Tank- Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center to develop a tactical ground vehicle that is significantly lighter and more fuel efficient than current high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, HMMWVs. Specifically, this program will focus on the overall design of the vehicle as well as components including hybrid electric propulsion systems, fuel cells, advanced batteries, and new armor solutions. This project is key to advancing technologies that will allow the Department of Defense to meet the fuel efficiency goals it has established. Additionally, this project is complementary to the development of the new joint light tactical vehicle and will provide an opportunity to demonstrate a number of new technologies, including on- board power solutions, that can be spun into the vehicle as its development moves forward. Lastly, this project provides the opportunity to test technologies that will give our military new capabilities, including silent overwatch and mobile power sources on the battlefield. The second cut of $14.215 million eliminated funding for future combat systems, FCS, science and technology activities in the area of robotics. FCS is the Army's only major transformation project, and we must remain committed to this program. These funds would be used to support the development of electronics and control systems for unmanned ground vehicles that will eventually be integrated into the FCS network. Without these funds, the Army will not have the ability to build a large scale unmanned ground vehicle demonstrator to test new robotics technologies. These funds are critical to advancing and testing new robotics technologies so they can be rapidly deployed to our warfighters around the world. Cutting these funds will reduce the Army's ability to develop and test robotics technologies needed by our troops and increase the risk that they will not be available for rapid transition into the hands of warfighters. I am sure my colleague would agree that we should do more, not less, to achieve increased fuel efficiency in our military ground vehicles and more rapidly mature the capabilities of unmanned ground vehicle technologies.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. With you every time. But when you were chairman and you--

Mr. LEVIN. One time each, I think, for 18 days. But, in any event, I thank our staffs. I thank my friend for raising this issue.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could add one word on that subject, the Senator from Massachusetts is not only about as diligent a Senator as one can imagine, but he has had great success on this particular bill. I do not know how he manages to keep all the balls in the air that he does, including the CHIP program, immigration, and so many other issues. But he has had an extraordinary success on this particular bill, and it is a real tribute to him--this bill--for many reasons.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the pending amendment by Senator Kennedy on public-private competition. Sometimes this amendment is described as the Kennedy-Mikulski or the Mikulski- Kennedy amendment. Both Senators deserve a great deal of credit for their support. The Department of Defense has allowed its workforce of civilian employees to atrophy to the point of a human capital crisis. Since fiscal year 2000, the number of contractor employees under DOD service contracts has roughly doubled, while the number of DOD civilian employees has remained virtually unchanged. As a result, the Department of Defense has found in area after area--acquisition management, financial management, even security and intelligence--it must now rely upon contractors to perform functions that were formerly performed by Federal employees. These adverse trends have been exacerbated by an administration that has consistently pushed to have more Federal work performed in the private sector. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget established a goal of subjecting half of the work performed by Federal employees to private sector competition within 4 years. While the administration subsequently backed off of this Government-wide goal, OMB continues to establish agency-specific goals, and to grade agencies on their performance in converting work to private sector performance. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would end this artificial effort to drive contracts to the private sector by codifying a commonsense set of rules that govern competition between Federal employees and private contractors. Some of these rules have already been enacted through appropriations acts in previous Congresses. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make these rules permanent law. Others have already been enacted for the DOD. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make these provisions Government-wide. I wish to focus on one provision of the amendment which addresses a fundamental element of fairness in competition between the private and public sectors. OMB circular A-76, which governs public-private competitions, establishes rules for what happens after one side or the other wins a competition. If the private sector wins a competition, the work stays in the private sector forever. If the public sector wins, however, the work must be subject to a new competition within 5 years. Attachment B to OMB circular A-76 specifically states that if the public sector competitor wins a competition, ``an agency shall complete another . . . competition of the activity by the end of the last performance period'' in the performance agreement. This rule is fundamentally unfair. It also undermines the morale of Federal civilian employees by contributing to the view of civil servants as second-class citizens. At a time when the Department of Defense should be recruiting thousands of new civilian employees to address a human capital crisis, the rule is clearly contrary to the Department's own interests. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would address this problem by stating that OMB may not require the Department of Defense to conduct a new public-private competition within any specified period of time after the public sector wins a competition. That is the right answer. DOD's human capital policies should be driven by the Department's human capital needs--not by arbitrary policies established by the Office of Management and Budget. So I hope our colleagues will support the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate adopted a historic amendment offered by Senators Webb, McCaskill, and others, to establish an independent commission to review the many problems with fraud, waste, and abuse that have arisen in Iraq relative to contracting and to give us recommendations on how we can avoid similar problems in the future. I wish to commend the Senators that were involved in this effort for the leadership they showed in drafting this amendment and getting it adopted by the Senate. The Department of Defense faces huge problems in its acquisition system today. Over the last few years, we have seen an alarming lack of acquisition planning across the Department; the excessive use of contracts that make open-ended commitments of DOD funds; and a pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management functions necessary to protect taxpayers' interest. These problems have been particularly acute in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are in no way limited to Iraq and Afghanistan. The contracting commission established pursuant to the Webb-McCaskill amendment should help us identify the sources of these problems and provide us with constructive recommendations to avoid similar problems in the future. In addition to the commission language adopted last week, there are significant acquisition reform measures already in this bill, as it came to the floor, that will make improvements in the DOD acquisition system and to wartime contracting. Taken together, these provisions will make the bill that is now before the Senate, by far, the most significant acquisition reform measure to be considered by Congress since the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act more than 10 years ago. For example, section 821 of the bill would require increased competition in large ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on the Department of Defense management of the $20 billion so-called LOGCAP contract, under which a company called KBR--until recently, a subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the field. Here are some of the things we learned in our hearing: The company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract; all of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition; the contractor resisted providing us with information that we needed to monitor and control costs; there were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract; and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges. When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the massive LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors, allowing for greater competition of the work to be performed under the contract, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics gave the following answer: ``I don't have a good answer for you.'' The provision in our bill would avoid the kind of abuses we get in sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. If our language stays intact, we should never again see the kind of abuses which existed with the Halliburton-KBR umbrella contracts. Similarly, section 871 of the bill would require tighter regulation and control over private security contractors operating in areas of combat operations. Over the last 4 years, there has been a number of reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq. There have been allegations, even films, of contractors shooting recklessly at civilians as they drive down the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Some of these contractors work for the Department of Defense, but many others work for other Federal agencies or for contractors of other Federal agencies. Most recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident in which employees of Blackwater allegedly opened fire on innocent Iraqis in downtown Baghdad. According to published reports, Blackwater employees shot into a crush of cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and wounding 12. Blackwater officials insist their guards were ambushed, but witnesses described this shooting as unprovoked, and Iraq's Interior Ministry has concluded that Blackwater was at fault. Last week, the Washington Post reported that senior military officials are deeply concerned about this shootout and other similar incidents which could undermine our efforts to combat terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. This is what the Washington Post article reported: ``The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event''. . . . ``This is a nightmare,'' said a senior U.S. military official. ``We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term''. . . . In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government officials, many expressed . . . concern over the shootings. . . . ``This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their hands around yet,'' said another U.S. military official. ``It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to anyone--even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis.'' ``Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,'' said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the September 16 shootings, the officer added, ``None of us believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their black eyes.'' ``Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control,'' said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. ``They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everybody else tries to play by.'' The provision in our bill would address this problem by ensuring that the Department of Defense and its combatant commanders are in a position to regulate the conduct of all armed contractors in the battle space, regardless of whether they are employed under contracts of the Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Under the provision in our bill, private security contractors employed by any Federal agency or any contractor or subcontractor for a Federal agency would be required for the first time to comply with DOD rules on the use of force and with orders, directions, and instructions issued by combatant commanders relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or relations and interaction with local nationals. Other provisions in our bill would provide added protection for contractor employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse. They would require the DOD to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the billions of dollars it spends every year to purchase contract services. Our bill will tighten rules for the acquisition of major weapons systems; ensure that we get fair prices when we purchase spare parts for those weapons systems; enhance competition requirements for products purchased from Federal prison industries; and address abuses of undefinitized contract actions. The root cause of these and all the other problems that we read and hear so much about, or at least most of the other problems, in the defense acquisition system is our failure to maintain an acquisition workforce with the resources and skills that are needed to manage the Department's acquisition system. Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, chartered pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, reported that ``curtailed investments in human capital have produced an acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and resources to function effectively.'' And they went on: The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands that have been placed on it. The failure of Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the panel concluded, is `` `penny-wise and pound-foolish,' as it seriously undermines the pursuit of the good value for the expenditure of public resources.'' Senior DOD officials have recognized the deficiencies in the defense acquisition workforce, but they have been unable to obtain significant funds that are needed to remedy the problem. Section 844 of our bill will address this issue by establishing an acquisition workforce development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the size and quality of its acquisition workforce. In the first year, we will provide roughly $500 million for this purpose. It is a large sum of money, but it is a small investment to ensure the proper expenditure of more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money every year. We look forward to working with the House conferees after we pass our bill, hopefully this evening, to make these important provisions on acquisition reform and the acquisition workforce the law of the land. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill we have just adopted is the 46th consecutive annual Defense authorization bill that has come out of our committee and been brought to the Senate for debate and passage. It has been no secret that this is one of the largest and most complex and important pieces of legislation that comes before the Senate every year. Every year since 1961, it has been a challenge to get it passed. Thankfully, because of its vital importance to our Nation, we have always found a way to do so. This year was particularly difficult, as we continue to debate the war in Iraq. Today is the 19th and final day of debate on this bill. Only two other annual Defense authorization bills have required longer to pass. In 1969, the Senate debated the bill for 37 days. In 1970, it was debated for 28 days. History shows that in time of war, the Senate acts as it should and takes the necessary time to carefully consider this bill and its impact on our Nation. We had over 400 amendments that were filed to this bill. We were able to work with all Senators and pass several large packages of managers' amendments while we were wrestling with Iraq-related amendments. All told, we acted on a total of 214 amendments during the bill's consideration. Whenever we reach the point of final passage of legislation, we take a moment to thank Members and staff. To some this may seem to be a routine matter. It is not. All of us who make up the Senate should honor its customs and traditions. They are really the foundation of this Senate. With that as my motivation, I want to take a moment to express my thanks to those who worked so hard and cooperated so well to bring us to final passage of this bill. First, my thanks go to Senator McCain who is serving as our ranking member for the first time this year. Senator McCain's leadership and determination helped forge this bill through the committee and on to final passage. Next, I thank and acknowledge our former chairman, Senator Warner. Senator Warner has made innumerable contributions to this bill. This bill would not be here but for the work of Senator Warner. Working within arm's reach of Senator Warner each year for the past 28 years has been truly one of the highlights of my Senate career. He is a good friend of mine. More importantly, he is a good friend to national defense and to the people who depend upon it and who work for it in this country. To our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff, a special word of thanks for giving us the time and the tools to get this bill through the Senate. To all of our committee members who, again, worked on a bipartisan basis, we appreciate their work. We do not often take the time to express it. I am afraid this will kind of have to be that moment. People do not realize our committee has one quarter of the Senate as its members. We work together in the committee. Our differences on the bill did not divide us. We reported the bill by a unanimous vote. To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, he did his work skillfully. He proved over 400 times, with those 400 amendments, that he knows how to draft amendments. To our committee staff members, they truly earned the thanks and recognition of the entire Senate for their time and their efforts on this legislation. I want to mention two of the members of our staff who lead our staff and one woman who has served on our committee staff for the past 19 years. To Rick DeBobes, our committee staff director, he serves us so brilliantly and well and so unselfishly 24/7. He is within earshot, so I will not embarrass him and have him blush other than to say he is so totally indispensable not just to me but to the Senate and all of the staff that work so well with him. Our gratitude. To Senator McCain's new Republican staff director, Mike Kostiw, his leadership is so effective that it is quite difficult to believe this is Mike's first year. To Cindy Pearson, our assistant chief clerk and security manager, a special word of thanks and encouragement. Cindy has been serving the committee for the last 19 years. She is the consummate professional in every aspect of her work. She is away from us right now as she undergoes treatment for breast cancer. We want her to know she is ever present in our thoughts and in our prayers. We all look forward to welcoming Cindy Pearson back to the committee family soon. So Rick's and Mike's and all the other committee staff members' long and hard work and personal sacrifices, day in and day out, to get this bill enacted again this year paid off. They are the backbone of the Senate. They and other people who work for us in this Senate make it possible to turn our ideas into policies and into legislation. I thank them all. I know I thank them for their expertise and their dedication on behalf of all the members of the committee. They brought us again through to the point of conference with the House. We are hopeful to bring back promptly a conference report. But in the meantime, thanks to them, their professionalism, and their hard work. We are where we are at. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the entire Armed Services Committee staff be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of 18 amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the now acting ranking member, Senator Warner, and ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any specific amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. So I do not know if we set a record because my good friend from Virginia probably is the record-holder--and probably more than once. But, I say to the Senator, we are going to try to get to where you have been. We are going to try harder.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Warner, for that suggestion. This is a good moment to do that before we have a vote later on the bill. Our staffs, as always, put in an amazing amount of time--in the evenings, mornings, over weekends--in order for us to get through hundreds of amendments. Actually, the Senator is right. I think there were 180 cleared amendments and about 35 amendments that have been disposed of separately one way or another.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, let me commend the Senator from Florida. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, with his ranking member, the members of that subcommittee have worked through some of the most difficult and thorny issues we faced on this bill this year, and he identified a few of them. He very modestly gives credit to others, but, truly, Senator Nelson deserves most of the credit for working out those very difficult issues on a bipartisan basis. As a passionate defender of what we should do as a country for the survivors of those men and women we lose in war, I can only assure him we are going to do everything we can possibly do in conference because I assume that had that been brought to a rollcall vote, it would have been unanimous or nearly unanimous on the floor of the Senate. We appreciated his willingness to have that go as part of the managers' package, but for the purpose of that conference, I can assure my dear friend from Florida that there is an assumption on our part that would have been a unanimous or near unanimous vote by the Senate and so, obviously, it is the right thing to do. I also have a longer statement later--because 5:30 has arrived--about our work as a committee, the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, and the staff. I will save that statement for after our vote on final passage, which will come immediately after the vote on the Kennedy- Mikulski amendment, but I wanted to add that quick comment.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. The hour of 5:30 has arrived. I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 3109 be withdrawn and that there be 2 minutes of debate at this time prior to a vote in relation to the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 3058; that no amendment be in order to the amendment; that no further amendments be in order; that the debate time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 3058; that upon disposition of that amendment, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and that the Senate then vote on the passage of H.R. 1585; that all other provisions of the previous order relating to H.R. 1585 remain in effect and that on Tuesday, October 2, following a period of morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 353, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department Appropriations Act.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is a request for a quorum call in order at this time?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with each Senator given 10 minutes.