Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is nobody in this body I would rather work with than Senator Warner. We have had this relationship, which is a very warm one, for as long as we have both been here, and we have been here the same length of time. I want to tell Senator Warner we are doing something unusual tomorrow and Monday in an effort to address the amendments which people want to offer. We are lining up people to speak on amendments, although they cannot get votes. Traditionally around here, there has been great resistance--and understandably--to offering amendments on one day if you cannot get a vote on that day because people want votes to come shortly after the debate so it will be fresh in people's mind. We are making every effort to move this bill. We are having people lined up. We have them for tomorrow. We have them for Monday. We are willing, just in order to expedite consideration of this bill, to debate the bill on a Friday, although the votes cannot occur until a Tuesday. We are moving heaven and Earth. We are going out of our way to bring up amendments. But it is utterly unfair that a cloture motion be adopted which will cut off the opportunity of other Members to offer amendments under this circumstance. We are not delaying it. We are expediting this bill in every single way we know. In terms of the question asked by a number of my colleagues, I cannot remember a Defense bill that just had 1 day for votes. Typically, we spend a good week on debate, maybe more--2 weeks, 3 weeks--on a Defense authorization bill. The idea that the cloture is filed on the second day to cut off debate on amendments seems to me unthinkable. These are amendments aimed at improving this bill, strengthening this bill. That is the motive. We all have the same goal. We may differ when it comes to votes, but the motive is to strengthen this bill, to offer greater support for the men and women in the military. The idea that any one of those amendments might be cut off because technically they are not germane--although they are relevant--seems to me unthinkable. I hope, No. 1, we will make progress; No. 2, that the majority would think about filing a cloture motion under these circumstances which would deny an opportunity to strengthen a bill which is so important to the men and women in the military.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I hope the Senator from South Dakota, if available tomorrow or Monday, if there is further debate on this amendment, might be present or be able to listen to the debate so he could respond to it.

Mr. LEVIN. Now, I assume this amendment will be laid aside similar to other pending amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Would the chairman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his intrepid, persistent, and determined, bulldogged leadership to try to address the greatest threat this country faces which is the presence of a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist or terrorist state. We are told over and over again--one commission after another tells us--the greatest threat this Nation faces would be a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist or terrorist state--``loose nukes,'' as they are sometimes called. Yet, in the wonderful program we have called Nunn-Lugar, we have impediments to the prompt spending of our money in order to secure or destroy the weapons that threaten us. Why, in Heaven's name, we would put any impediment in the way of addressing the greatest threat that faces this country absolutely mystifies me. We have six conditions that have to be certified to annually by the President before this money can be spent to protect our Nation. Let me take one of them. One of the conditions that has to be addressed and met in a report is the President certify annually that each country is meeting the following condition--one of the six--that the country is foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds the legitimate defense requirements of that country. Now, why, in Heaven's name, we want to have some agency's employee spending time looking at whether Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan or, yes, Russia, in their entire military budget is spending any money on any weapons system that, in our judgment, they do not need--and if we cannot certify that, we cannot protect ourselves against destroying the weapon of mass destruction that exists in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan--why would we want to tie our hands that way in order to address the greatest threat that faces us? It is absolutely mysterious to me. The great Senator from Indiana--I do not know if he went through each one of these conditions. I know he went through some of them. And I am not even sure how we could certify that Russia has forgone every single military modernization program that exceeds their legitimate defense needs. How could anyone certify that? Go through the entire Russian defense budget and look at every single modernization program? I am not even sure it is public. I am not sure ours are. I know ours are not all public, by the way. We have classified programs. But the way the law reads, we have to get the Presidential certification that there is no Russian modernization program that exceeds their legitimate defense needs. We have to do that with every country--Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Albania--before we can secure or destroy weapons, material, weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear material that threatens us? We have to write these endless reports, trying to certify that those conditions are met? We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. What we are doing here is, instead of trying to secure material or destroy material, we end up securing reports, producing reports. How many of us have read those reports, by the way? I am not sure how many have been filed because they have to be waived every year if they are not written. But how many of us would look through a report on every modernization program--if we could figure it out--that Kazakhstan has before we destroy material that threatens us that might exist in that country? Now, these impediments to protecting our people against the greatest threat we face actually make no sense anymore. We ought to get rid of them instead of requiring an annual certification, involving people writing these certifications, writing these reports rather than effectively spending our resources in order to protect the American people. We say we have to be able to certify that Russia has accurately declared the size of its chemical weapons stockpile. We cannot certify that, verify it, because there is a great dispute over verification between ourselves and Russia. They want to come in to certain places we do not want them to come in, so they cannot verify certain things, because we are not giving them access. We are not perfectly transparent in terms of our own chemical production facility, for legitimate reasons. But there is a dispute on transparency between us and Russia. So that dispute, which is a legitimate dispute, which has not been resolved yet--despite, let's assume, good-faith efforts on both sides-- the presence of that dispute means we cannot or the President cannot make a certification that Russia has accurately declared the size of a chemical weapons stockpile because we cannot get the verification agreed to, again, because we will not provide access to our own facility. That stops us from defending our people against chemical weapons. What is the goal here? Reports or security? If we can get our hands on chemical weapons or biological weapons or nuclear material or missiles and destroy them, why wouldn't we want to grab that opportunity? Why would we want to put impediments in the way and require reports or certifications to be made? By the way, I think it is great if the reports can be made. I have no problem with it, either. Senator Lugar mentioned, we raise these issues all the time. But we should not attach these as conditions to our taking action which is in our own interest. Churning away at reports when it is in our national security to eliminate weapons of mass destruction does not make sense to me. We have this process requiring hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the intelligence community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. That time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats that face our country. We should be spending all of our energies on interdicting WMD shipments, all of our energies at identifying the next A.Q. Khan, all of our energies on locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Instead, we have nonproliferation experts spending time compiling reports and assembling certifications and waiver determinations. By the way, the majority of those reports is repetitive. They have already filed reports in other formats. Yet we continue to require that. The President does not have to spend any of this money. If the Executive decides they have questions and they are not going to spend money, for whatever legitimate reason, fine. But we should not add to their burdens. And we should not jeopardize the security of this Nation by putting barriers in the way of taking action to secure or destroy the most threatening material we face--chemical, biological, or nuclear material. I very strongly support the efforts of our good friend from Indiana, who has been such a leader here. When Sam Nunn was here, it was Nunn- Lugar. No one could take Sam Nunn's place. Senator Lugar, with the support of many of us, including, may I say, our chairman, the Presiding Officer--who has supported the amount of money for Nunn- Lugar--without the support of the chairman of the committee, who is now presiding over the Senate, we would not be able to get that amount of money we have in this authorization. By the way, we are going to try to increase that somewhat during the debate on this bill. But that amount of money, which is requested, I believe, by the administration, would not be there but for the Senator from Indiana, but for the chairman of our committee, and but for the support many of us on the Armed Services Committee have to address this absolutely most dangerous threat this Nation faces. I commend the Senator from Indiana, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of his amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman would yield, there is an issue on the floor today, in addition to the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution about keeping men in space. We have a pending amendment that is going to be offered by Senator Lugar that has to do with nonproliferation, Nunn-Lugar, trying to make it possible for us to see if we cannot reduce the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I think the Member of the Senate who probably pioneered in the effort to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was John Glenn, who happens to be on the Senate floor at this particular moment. Senator Lugar is now here. Under our UC, he will be offering his amendment. But the effort of Senator Lugar to try to control weapons of mass destruction, to lock them up, to make sure that there are no loose nukes, that Senator Nunn and so many others joined in, was actually a subject which was very close to the heart and very much on the lips of John Glenn when he was here as a Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me say how delighted that I know I am--I know every Member who is on the floor now is, and every Member would be if they were on the floor--just taking a look at a dear friend and a former colleague of ours who just walked on the floor. When John Glenn is in our presence, it lifts all of us. The way he lifted up this Nation, he still provides a great lift to each and every one of us. And his beloved wife and our beloved friend, Annie, does the same when she is at his side. So it is great to see former Senator Glenn again. I also want to thank Senator Nelson for his remarks. I must say we are blessed--and I know Senator Warner feels the same way I do--that the members of our committee work so well together, but we are particularly blessed when we have members such as Bill Nelson of Florida who fight for so many issues not just for Florida but for the Nation. He mentioned TRICARE. He has been on that issue as long as anybody I can remember. As it happened, we passed that perhaps when he was not even on the Senate floor today, but I know he has been a strong supporter and his advocacy has made all the difference.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provisions in the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill increase the military death gratuity from $12,400 to $100,000. The bill before us continues that increase in the gratuity. The provisions, however, do not cover all people on active duty. It only covers people who are killed in combat. Our military leaders strongly, and I believe unanimously--our uniformed leaders--believe the death of a military person who is on active duty should be covered equally whether that person was killed in combat or on his way to a training exercise. They have testified in front of our committee very forcefully that they believe the benefit which we have provided, the so-called military death gratuity of $100,000--now as we provide in the bill to be made permanent--should be applied equally to all persons on active duty. The case of Marine LTC Richard Wersel, Jr., who had a fatal heart attack while exercising 1 week after returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq, perhaps says it all. This was an active-duty marine. He had just come back from an extremely difficult and stressful deployment. He had multiple deployments over 30 months. He had been training indigenous troops to fight drug traffickers. As well, he had two tours of duty in Iraq. But as his wife put it: Those multiple deployments were the silent bullet that took her husband's life. Under current law, the death gratuity which would go to the wife and family would only be $12,400. Had the heart attack occurred while in Iraq, the death gratuity would have been $100,000. In either case, Colonel Wersel was serving his Nation, as he did very well throughout his life. He was on active duty. The fact that he died a week after returning from a second, stressful tour in Iraq should not cause his surviving spouse to receive such a significantly smaller death gratuity. This is what the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps told the Armed Services Committee at a hearing on military death benefits. He said: I think we need to understand before we put any distinctions on the great service of these wonderful young men and women who wear this cloth forward into combat, training to go to combat or in tsunami relief, they are all performing magnificently. I think we have to be very cautious in drawing distinctions. At another hearing, I asked General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, for his views on whether the military death gratuity should be the same for all members who die on active duty. His answer was: I think a death gratuity that applies to all servicemembers is preferable to one that's targeted just to those that might be in a combat zone. He said: When you join the military, you join the military. You go where they send you. And it's happenstance that you're in a combat zone or you're at home. And I think we have in the past held to treating people universally, for the most part, and consistently. And that's how I come down on that. That is what General Myers said. The Presiding Officer well knows this because he has to deal with these losses regularly back home in Minnesota. He pointed out earlier today how many Reserve folks he has in Minnesota whom he supports. No benefit--no benefit--can replace the loss of life of a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who gives his or her life in service to our country. Every survivor would choose to have the servicemember alive and healthy rather than any compensation our Government could provide. But that does not mean our benefits should not be full and generous and consistent; it is just a recognition that we cannot place a monetary value on a life given in service to our Nation. There is much more to be said about this issue. But, again, the testimony of our senior uniformed military leaders, it seems to me, is the most compelling testimony, in addition to the actual, tragic situations we have, such as the one I read about a moment ago. So I offer this amendment. Many of us have supported this amendment. There have been many members of our committee and many Members of the Senate who are not on the committee who I know very strongly support a $100,000 death gratuity for all active-duty military deaths, not just those who die in combat-related activity.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from New Jersey for this amendment. It is ironic--the person who is presiding at this moment will understand this reference--that when it comes to Cuba, the sanctions not only apply to companies that would deal with Cuba under our law but also apply to their subsidiaries. And yet when it comes to the subsidiaries of companies that are dealing with terrorism, which have sanctions against them for different reasons, we don't cover the subsidiaries. So with Cuba, the subsidiaries are covered when it comes to sanctions, but when it comes to dealing with states that are on a terrorist list where the President of the United States decides to exercise his discretion to impose sanctions against a country and where companies are not thereby allowed to do business with that country, we don't cover the subsidiaries of the corporations, only the corporations themselves. It is not only a loophole which has been pointed out by my friend from New Jersey, but it is a very inconsistent treatment. What the Senator from New Jersey is saying is let's do the same for the subsidiaries of corporations that deal with terrorist states and terrorist organizations and groups as we cover subsidiaries that deal with Cuba. I thank him for pointing out the loophole. If we are going to be serious about our war on terrorism, we have to be serious about providing sanctions against states that support terrorism. We have to be serious about telling American companies they cannot deal with those states or with those entities, and that we are truly serious. We have to also tell companies when we say you may not deal with terrorist states, you may not do business with terrorist states when the President so determines, that we are also applying this to your subsidiaries as well. So it is an important amendment. We had a vote on a very similar amendment I believe a year ago or so. It almost passed this body. I think it came within one vote, and I hope that, given what we have seen in the last year, we can only reinforce the point which the Senator from New Jersey made in his amendment previously, that we can pick up the additional votes this time and pass this very important amendment. I commend him on it.

Mr. LEVIN. I assume that in addition to the debate taking place tonight on this amendment, it could also take place tomorrow, along with a number of other amendments which at least will be debated tomorrow. I hope this might be one of those amendments that could be debated tomorrow, in addition to the comments that the chairman would make.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I commend our chairman for it and urge our colleagues to support the amendment. In addition to that, I hope the Department of Defense will thoroughly review the Army and Marine Corps long-term truck armor strategies so we can identify requirements in a timely manner, sufficient funding be requested in a timely manner so we can assure our troops that they will get the equipment they need and deserve in time to meet the threat. I know this Congress, under this chairman's leadership, has over and over again told the Defense Department: We will give you every dollar you need. There are no financial constraints when it comes to supporting our troops. We have told them that over and over again. It should not be necessary to add this money, but it is. I wholeheartedly support it, and I thank the chairman for his leadership. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bayh of Indiana, who I know is trying to get to the floor to support this amendment because of his leadership in this area, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me also commend the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Indiana. They have been stalwarts in terms of urging we address this armor question. Our service men and women continue to die and suffer grievous wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by far the major casualty producer is the roadside bomb or mine--what the military calls an improvised explosive device or IED. The services are working to counter that threat through a variety of means--better intelligence, innovative tactics, techniques and procedures, the use of jamming devices, and of course, adding armor to Army and Marine Corps HMMWVs and other trucks. On my recent visit to Iraq, met with the Marines in Fallujah and viewed and discussed the various levels of armor protection on their HMMWVs and the new armor package for their heavy truck. The armor issue is both a good news and a bad news story. The good news is that in just over 2 years, the Army and Marine Corps have gone from only a few hundred armored trucks to nearly 40,000 and 6,000 respectively. Many people have worked night and day to make that happen, and we commend and thank them for doing so. Congress has consistently provided all the funding requested and, in several instances, has provided funding ahead of any request. In fact, the fiscal year 2005 Defense emergency supplemental added $1.2 billion for various force protection equipment, most notably for uparmored HMMWVs and add-on armor for HMMWVs and other trucks. As of last month, all known requirements for truck armor for Iraq and Afghanistan were funded, and the Army and Marine Corps were on track to complete those requirements for HMMWVs by July and September respectively, and for other trucks by December of next year. The bad news is that military commanders have been slow to recognize the growing threat to thin-skinned HMMWVs and other trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan and determined requirements for armored trucks slowly and incrementally. For instance, in May of 2004, my staff sent me a memo which said: The current Central Command requirement for [up-armored HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan is 4454. This appears to be an ever-increasing number over the last year, having been increased from 253 to 1233 to 1407 to 2957 to 3142 to 4149 to 4388, and finally to 4454. We have no confidence that it will not be increased again in the future.'' That was a prescient statement because over the next year, the requirement for uparmored HMMWVs continued to increase--to 10,079 for the Army and 498 for the Marine Corps. The story was similar for the requirements to armor other Army and Marine Corps trucks. These incremental increases in requirements have led to inefficient acquisition and unnecessary delays in getting armored trucks for our troops. It has also caused a lot of confusion and some fingerpointing, particularly between the Army and the Marine Corps on the one hand O'Gara Hess, the company which produces the uparmored HMMWV, On the other. A recent New York Times article reported that ``in January, when it [referring to the Army] asked O'Gara to name its price for the design rights for the armor, the company balked and suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.'' With respect to the Marine Corps' uparmored HMMWV requirement, the same article further reported that, ``asked why the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 humvees it ordered last year, O'Gara acknowledged that it told the Marines it was backed up with Army orders, and has only begun filling the Marines' request this month. But the company says the Marine Corps never asked it to rush.'' I questioned the Army Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marine Corps on these issues in a hearing on June 30. I asked the Army Chief of Staff for an answer for the record as to whether or not it was true that the Army sought to purchase the design rights so that we could produce the uparmored HMMWVs a lot more quickly and that the company balked. I also asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps for an answer for the record as to whether the Marine Corps ever asked O'Gara to rush its order for uparmored HMMWVs. Just this morning, I received a formal response from the Army on the design rights. The Marine Corps has informally asserted that it did ask the company for accelerated production. In its defense, Armor Holdings, the parent company of O'Gara Hess, has said that at the time of the Marine Corps' inquiry in September of 2004 relating to potential production of additional uparmored HMMWVs, the company indicated its interest in and its ability to produce those vehicles, and that as soon as the order was actually placed by the Marines in February 2005, it began to work on and has already begun to deliver those vehicles. What is still unclear is whether the Marine Corps ever coordinated a request for accelerated production through the Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command which handles all of the contract actions for upamored HMMWVs, and if it did, why the company was not issued a contract to increase the production rate over and above the increase from 450 to 550 a month that the Army requested in December of 2004. With respect to the technical data package, TDP--the ``design rights'' discussed in the New York Times article--the Army says it requested, for informational purposes only, that O'Gara Hess submit a cost proposal for procurement of the technical data package in order to obtain a price for a TDP complete enough for any firm to manufacture the current uparmored HMMWV. The company has argued that the TDP was developed by Armor Holdings, with its own money, under its own initiative; that a formal request was never made by the Army to purchase that TDP as required under Federal Acquisition Regulations; that the company responded to an informal e-mail inquiry to that effect in January 2005 by offering to place the TDP in escrow and in so doing, allow the Army instant access to the design information if the company ever failed to meet the Army's request. In the company's view, it saw no logic to the inquiry because it had met or exceeded every production requirement and schedule, was ready and willing to produce more, and consequently there was no need for the Army to obtain alternative production sources. What is not clear is why the Army would request the rights to the TDP for the uparmored HMMWV in January 2005, since already contracted for a the uparmored HMMWVs it planned to procure in fiscal year 2006--the last year that it intends to procure uparmored HMMWVs as it moves to implement its long-term armor strategy of procuring removable armor kits. I am expecting further information from the Army and the Marine Corps soon to clear up these matters. This illustrates the continued confusion surrounding uparmored HMMWVs that has frustrated so many of us in Congress. Given this background, and in light of the uncertainty as to whether requirements would continue to increase, the Senate Armed Services Committee, in the markup of the fiscal year 2006 authorization bill, added $120 million for the Army to continue to procure uparmored HMMWVs or add-on armor for HMMWVs and other trucks, even though the known requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan had been met with fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental funding. Now, however, it appears that the requirements have once again changed. Central Command is currently considering a request from the Southern European Task Force commander for additional uparmored HMMWVs for Afghanistan. And the Marine Corps has decided to upgrade and ``pure-fleet'' all 2,814 Marine Corps HMMWVs in the CENTCOM area of operations to the uparmored HMMWV configuration. Based on current, on- hand quantities, the Marine Corps could be short 1,826 uparmored HMMWVs. To compound the potential problem, the Army plans to end all production of the uparmored HMMWV as it ramps up the production of a new HMMWV model with a heavier chassis that is ready to accept an integrated, bolt-on/off armor kit. However, the fiscal year 2006 President's budget only funds 90 of these vehicles with the armor kit. This would not appear to be a prudent approach, given the history to date of ever increasing requirements for truck armor. The pending amendment would do two things: it would add $340 million to fund the 1,826 shortfall in the newest Marine Corps requirement for uparmored HMMWVs, and it would add $225 million to the Army for truck armor, an increase from the $120 million currently in the authorization bill. That is enough for the Army to procure the add-on armor kits for the 4,037 M1152 HMMWVs that will currently be fielded without armor in fiscal year 2006. With this funding and these additional armor kits, by the end fiscal year 2006 the Army will have fielded 16,768 HMMWVs with the highest--Level 1--armor protection. I whole-heartedly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise. I also urge the Department of Defense to thoroughly review Army and Marine Corps long-term truck armor strategies and ensure that all requirements are identified in a timely manner, and that sufficient funding is requested in a timely manner so that we can ensure our troops get the equipment they need and deserve as quickly as possible. Mr. President, to reiterate, lack of armor for our troops has been truly one of the most discouraging elements of the Iraq war. Partly it is because of what the Senator from Virginia said. There has been a change in requirements along the way. Partly it has been administrative failures along the way inside the Department. Listen to a New York Times article that has a conflict between the Army and Marines on the one hand and our producer, O'Gara Hess, on the other hand. The New York Times article says: In January, when the Army asked O'Gara to name its price for the design rights for the Army, the company balked and suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform. So we have the Army asking the manufacturer how much would it cost to buy the design rights so we could have a second line, so we could have a second source, we are short of armor. And the Army says they never got the answer. The producer says it was never asked formally. In the meantime, men and women are dying in Iraq because of that kind of confusion. So, yes, the requirements have changed, but there have also been administrative failures as well. Then the Marines say they asked the company to rush the orders. The company denies it ever got the request to rush the orders. Yes, the chairman is right, there have been changes in the requirements, the numbers needed, but I am afraid the Senator from Massachusetts is also right, that there have been some true failures and incompetence in the administration of the armor program. The differences in the conflicts that exist between the stories told by the Army and Marines on the one hand and the company that produces the humvees on the other, it seems to me, are evidence of those failures.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think the vote is scheduled for 12:30. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I understand that is a delay being requested from 2:15 to 2:30, so that everybody can understand.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I read this the same as the Senator from Illinois. It is not just that there be no possibility ever of any agency reducing any funding that goes to the Boy Scouts, which is the purported purpose of this, but it is any youth organization because it says any form of support for a youth organization. That means any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts. As I read this, it would make it impossible for any youth organization, no matter how bad it was managing its books, no matter what there might be in terms of fraud and abuse--we are talking about every single youth organization that gets funding from the Federal Government, no matter what the reduction in the number of members of that youth organization is, you could not reduce, apparently, a grant from a Federal agency to any youth organization. I think that goes way beyond the stated purpose of this amendment, which is to protect the Boy Scouts, which I agree with and understand and support.

Mr. LEVIN. My reference was to any Federal agency, which means any grant agency, not just Appropriations, which the Senator from Illinois referred to, but any Federal agency, which means any agency that makes any grant to any youth organization cannot reduce that grant, no matter what the reason is, next year. That is the way I read this. It is so overly broad, it ought to be modified or stricken or something. I think all of us want to support the Boy Scouts and their jamboree, using the facilities or the support of the Secretary of Defense and the armed services, as they have done before, but this is way broader than that.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if we could reach a time agreement on this amendment to give everybody an idea as to time. We are hoping it will be accepted. It is a terrific amendment. I am wondering if the chairman might consider a time limit.

Mr. LEVIN. Is Senator Leahy a supporter or opponent of the amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I do not know of any opposition.