Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Then I would make inquiry also from my friend from Virginia. I understand that the Republican TV monitor has already indicated no votes tonight. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. If we could work out votes, we were willing to do that, but I think it is becoming clear that is not going to happen.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Florida would need about how much time?

Mr. LEVIN. Whatever the Senator needs is fine. Then I would be offering two amendments, if that is agreeable with the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be introducing them immediately following the Senator from Florida.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the Armed Forces network. It is provided in this amendment that the Armed Forces network would provide members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees of the Defense Department, and their families stationed outside of the continental U.S. and at sea with the same type and quality of American radio and television news, information, sports, and entertainment that is available in the continental U.S. There are other provisions about fairness, balance, free flow of programming, et cetera. I am not familiar with the details. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is one more matter. I was handed this. On behalf of Senator Harkin, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so an amendment of his relating to the Armed Forces network could be introduced at this time.

Mr. LEVIN. While Senators Dodd and Warner are on the floor, let me first thank Senator Dodd for the passion he brought to this issue. This sounds like a process issue. It is not a process issue. These are life- and-death issues we are debating. These are war issues and how do we support our troops and their families issues. These are issues of whether there will be benefits for families who have lost loved ones in war. These are issues of whether bases will be closed, issues of nuclear weapons, and issues of whether we are going to go down the road of new nuclear weapons use at the same time we are trying to persuade the world not to go down that road. These are the most vital issues we can possibly face as a people. I commend the chairman. He is, in good faith, going to attempt to see if we cannot find a way we can have a reasonable few days of debate before this debate is closed off, so we can consider the important amendments that have been filed. The chairman is very much aware of the tradition of this committee because he has been part of it and supportive of it for so long. The tradition the Senator from Connecticut talks about is tradition which is plenty deep, but it is also law. I think we are the only committee which, by law, must pass an authorization bill. So that tradition is embodied in the law itself. There is one little statistic, and this is something the Senator from Connecticut feels in his bones is true. But I want to give a statistic to support that passion and feeling that has been so beautifully expressed by the Senator from Connecticut. Last year, the first cloture motion was filed on the 11th day of debate. This year, it was the beginning of the second day. The second cloture motion, because the first wasn't adopted last year, was filed after 15 days of debate and after 148 amendments were considered. That is how important this bill is. So look at a longer period of time--a 10-year average. The average length of time for the first filing of cloture on a Defense authorization bill during that 10-year period is the fifth day of debate, and the second filing is on the ninth day of debate. So we have always historically, and by law, taken a reasonable period of time--a week or 2 weeks--to debate this bill because of its importance to the country. As I was saying a moment ago, the chairman is very much aware of this tradition. He embodies it. He has fought for it. The Defense authorization bill should have due consideration, and I know he will do what he can in the next 24 hours to see if we cannot work out something that would allow some critically important amendments to be considered. I thank the chairman for that and I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we read the other day in the Washington Post about a procedure that is used by a number of contractors that reimburses those contractors for services rendered by subcontractors and where the contractor is charging the Government significantly more for that service than the subcontractor is paid. We are talking about labor rates. Here is what the Post told us and reminded us: Security guards in Virgin Islands paid $15 and $20 an hour were billed to the government at [twice that rate]. Office workers provided by [a subcontractor] at $20 an hour were billed to the government [by the prime contractor] at $48.07 an hour. This is not just to have a profit put in there for the prime contractor. That is legitimate. This is a theory that prime contractors are using known as ``mapping,'' where instead of basing their charge to the Government on the cost of labor, they are basing the charge to the Government on a theoretical cost of labor--not on the subcontractor's cost but on what the prime would have paid for the same service. So we are billed as a Government for labor performed, and the cost of that labor, although it is not the true cost of the labor, is a theoretical cost. That kind of practice should end. This amendment would fix the problem by requiring that prime contractors charge the Government their actual subcontract costs, unless the subcontract rates are specifically set forth in the prime contract. The General Services Administration has been balking at this change, although the Department of Defense itself says they have recognized the problem and are working to fix it. So we are going to come down with the effort to correct this problem that the DOD recognizes and override the obstinacy of the GSA to correct a very obvious inequity in terms of the American taxpayer. So that is the sum and substance of this amendment. We would ask that this amendment be considered in the usual course, assuming, again, that cloture is not invoked. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on April 5, 1986, Libya directed its agents to execute a terrorist attack in West Berlin for the sole purpose of killing and maiming as many American military personnel as possible. So they selected a discotheque that military personnel frequented in Berlin. They placed a bomb in the discotheque when 260 people, including U.S. personnel, were present. When that bomb detonated, two U.S. soldiers were killed and over 90 soldiers were severely injured. They have not been compensated. The German civilians who were in that discotheque were compensated, but the American military personnel and their families have not been, despite promises of the Libyan Government to do so. So this amendment simply says that we will not normalize, in any further way, relations with Libya until the Attorney General, after consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, certifies to Congress that Libya has made a good-faith effort and a good-faith offer in negotiating with U.S. service members who were injured in that discotheque bombing and with the family members of U.S. service members who were killed in that bombing. It is a very straightforward amendment that is so essential if we are going to do justice for U.S. military personnel who were killed in a terrorist attack by Libya the way justice has been done for the German civilians who were killed in that attack at that discotheque that was perpetrated by Libya and its agents. So we provide a very carefully worded assessment by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. They will decide if the good-faith offer has been made the way it has been promised. We do not make that decision in this amendment. We leave that up to the Attorney General, after consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. Amendment No. 1497 Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I call up amendment No. 1497.

Mr. LEVIN. Again, I commend my friend from South Carolina. I am glad we have the reassurance that he would consider at least abusive and degrading treatment to be inhumane treatment within the meaning of those words. I thank him, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 762

Mr. LEVIN. If I can go back and make inquiry of my good friend from South Carolina, I think he has focused, along with the cosponsors, on something which is critically important, and that is reliance on the Army manual so everybody knows the roadmap, as he puts it. Is it the Senator's understanding of the Army manual that abusive and degrading treatment would be prohibited?

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I mentioned to Senator Warner I would be saying this. He suggested the possibility of votes tonight. My response to him privately, and now publicly, is we would be happy to try to see if we could work out additional amendments that are pending where we could agree on rollcall votes tonight. I will work with Senator Warner to see if those amendments can be identified mutually during this rollcall vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I would have to check with our leadership on that. In terms of continuing tonight, I surely would be happy to do that, but let me check with our leaders.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would establish an independent commission on the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. U.S. policies, and too often practices, in the treatment of detainees have veered off the course which was established by decades of U.S. leadership in international humanitarian law and has been a champion of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and other detainees. Our troops serve honorably and courageously across the globe. Their honor is besmirched when some of those who are captured are abused. Our troops' future security is jeopardized when people we detain are not treated as we rightfully insist others treat our troops when they are captured. The amendment we are proposing today would help reaffirm the values we cherish as Americans. It would protect our troops should they be captured. It is going to be argued that there have been dozens of inquiries and hundreds of interviews and thousands of pages provided to Congress, but the fact is that huge gaps and omissions remain. First, we do not know the role of the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community in the mistreatment of detainees or what policies apply to these intelligence personnel. Second, we do not know what the policies and practices of the United States are regarding the rendition of detainees to other countries where they may be interrogated using techniques that would not be permitted at U.S. detention facilities. Third, we have insufficient information on the role of contractors in U.S. detention and intelligence operations. Fourth, the detention and interrogation of detainees by special operations forces need close examination. Fifth, we are still missing key documents, including legal documents, from the Office of Legal Counsel. Sixth, there are just too many significant questions which have been left unanswered. I hope we can appoint an independent commission on the treatment of these detainees, on policies involved, patterned after the 9/11 Commission. We owe it to our military personnel who might someday be in enemy custody to demonstrate our commitment to the humane treatment of detainees, to strengthen our standing, to object and to take appropriate action against anyone who would mistreat an American prisoner of war. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington. Amendment No. 1348

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if we can line up some time at this point. I will not object, but after he is recognized, I believe then the majority has additional time for another amendment going up to what time?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could just comment briefly on that, at least with the unclassified portion, we have access to it, unlike the documents that are issued by the Secretary of Defense memoranda. They are classified, but they are also, too often, unavailable to Congress. They just use one excuse after another not to make those memoranda available to Congress. So there may be a classified version of the field manual, but at least Congress has access to that unclassified version.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate Senator McCain. I do not think there is anybody in this body who speaks with greater authority on the subject matter he has spoken to in this amendment. I commend him for the distinction he is making. It is a critical distinction. In addition to the fact that the field manual is there for everybody to see and has historic meaning, the difference between the McCain amendment and the one which was offered by the Senator from Virginia--another difference--is that the field manual is a public document. You can read what is in the field manual. The Secretary of Defense memoranda too often have been classified ``unavailable.'' We have been spending sometimes months and years trying to just find out what is in those memoranda. So there is a very important difference between these two amendments in a number of regards. I very much believe that the first amendment, amendment No. 1557, is the way which is most consistent with our values. It makes it very clear, in public, what the authorities are and what the standards and criteria are. The contrast between that and something amorphous, which gives the Secretary of Defense a power he already has anyway, which is to issue regulations but to do so in secret and in a classified way, leads to more vagueness, more uncertainty, more conflict, more inability of Congress to perform oversight. So I commend the Senator from Arizona for this amendment. I believe the differences between these two amendments are significant.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1557, which is the field manual amendment to which they have been referring.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could be recognized just for 1 minute to comment on this amendment, and then I will yield the floor.