Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request first. I am glad the Senator put in the Record the remarks of General Shinseki. I think they fully support what Senator Reed was saying and what I was saying. I also ask unanimous consent at this point in the Record that the reaction of Secretary Wolfowitz to those remarks be printed. We will provide those for the Record, to the effect General Shinseki was widely off the mark and that it is hard to believe it would take more troops to occupy a country than it would be to win the war. I ask those remarks be made part of the Record. We will supply those remarks to the clerk, if that meets with the agreement of the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, though, again, for a comment on that.

Mr. LEVIN. If there was no staff workup on that issue, it would be shocking. There surely should have been staff work on the question of how many troops it would take to secure a country after its occupation. There have been a number of press reports to the effect that there in fact were some assessments as to how many troops, but I have never seen that assessment. If it did not exist, it would be pretty serious mismanagement, it seems to me, and if it does exist, we ought to get a copy of it. Either way, I think General Shinseki was mistreated. He was the subject of calumny, almost, inside the civilian part of the Defense Department, for expressing an opinion. I know my friend, the chairman, would agree with me that when a military officer is asked a question, he is required by a commitment that he makes to us when he is before us for confirmation to give us his honest professional judgment, and he was pressed by me to give us that judgment. He said he couldn't be specific, and then I pressed him to give us a range and he said: Several hundred thousand. The reaction to that amongst the civilians is that is widely off the mark. He paid a price he never should have paid for giving an honest opinion to a congressional committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Is there a document that supports 130,000 would be needed? I would like to see a document that supports any analysis of what would be needed. That is the problem with the failure to plan for the aftermath. It is that there was no plan for the aftermath. If there is a document that says 130,000--and maybe my good friend from Rhode Island has the document we are referring to?

Mr. LEVIN. We yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I voted for the Senate version of this FSC/ ETI legislation. While I had a number of misgivings about that bill, those were outweighed by my concerns over the crisis in our Nation's manufacturing sector and the sanctions being imposed as a result of the FSC/ETI regime. However, I will oppose this conference report. It fails to include too many of the important provisions from the Senate bill and has a number of added bad provisions. The Senate bill we passed in May did a lot to crack down on tax dodgers, but the House Republican leadership, with pressure from the administration, has refused to include most of these provisions in this legislation. While men and women in our military are putting their lives on the line every day for America, too many corporations are stiffing our country by dodging their taxes. They are depriving our country of funds needed to strengthen homeland security, support our troops, care for the sick, educate kids, and more. To make things fair for our U.S. manufacturers that play by the rules, we need to close loopholes that allow the tax dodging corporations to avoid paying their fair share. One of the most glaring of these omissions from this legislation is the provision passed by the Senate numerous times that would have required business transactions to have actual ``Economic Substance'' in order to receive tax benefits. Refusing to include this anti-abuse tool means that tax dodgers will still be able to escape paying their fair share by using phony transactions that have no business purpose other than tax avoidance. It also means we miss the opportunity to collect from these tax dodgers a much needed $15 billion over 10 years. Another distressing decision by the House Republicans is the slashing of the penalty imposed on those who design and peddle abusive tax shelters. These abusive shelters are undermining the integrity of our tax system, robbing the Treasury of tens of billions of dollars a year, and shifting the tax burden from high-income corporations and individuals onto the backs of the middle class. The amendment Senator Coleman and I offered, which became part of the Senate bill, set the penalty on an abusive tax shelter promoter at 100 percent of the fees earned from the abusive shelter. This penalty would have ensured that the abusive tax shelter hucksters would not get to keep a single penny of their ill-gotten gains. But that provision was cut in half in this conference report, setting the penalty at 50 percent of the fees earned, meaning the promoters of abusive shelters get to keep half of their gain. Why should anyone who pushes an illegal tax shelter that robs our Treasury of much needed revenues get to keep half of his ill-gotten gains? And what deterrent effect is created by a penalty that allows promoters to keep half of their fees if caught, and all of them if they are not? This half-hearted penalty is not tough enough to do the job that needs to be done. And this conference report completely leaves out yet another Senate provision that is critical in the fight against abusive tax shelters. In addition to those who are considered ``promoters'' of these abusive shelters, there are the professional firms--the law firms, banks, and investment advisors--that aid and abet the use of abusive tax shelters and enable taxpayers to carry out these abusive tax schemes. For example, a law firm is often asked to write an ``opinion letter'' to help taxpayers head off IRS questioning and fines that they might otherwise confront for using an abusive shelter. Under current law, these aiders and abetters face a penalty of only $1,000, or $10,000 if the offender is a corporation. This penalty is a joke. It provides no deterrent at all, when law firms are getting $50,000 for each of these cookie-cutter opinion letters. A $1,000 fine is like a parking ticket for raking in millions illegally. With the Levin-Coleman amendment, our Senate bill upped this fine to 100 percent of the gross income derived from the prohibited activity. Unfortunately, it appears the House conferees thought it was ok to let these aiders and abetters continue to profit handsomely from their wrongdoing instead attempting to deter this behavior that robs tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury. Another gaping tax loophole that this conference report weakened is the unfairness to the taxpayers that arises when companies renounce their citizenship, going through phony reincorporations by establishing a shell headquarters on paper in Bermuda or other tax-haven countries when, in reality, their primary offices and production or service facilities remain right here in the U.S. These corporate expatriates get all the benefits of being U.S. companies without contributing their fair share of the bill. The Senate FSC/ETI bill had a provision that would have shut down a significant portion of this loophole. I have long preferred an even stronger fix, such as the one Senator Reid of Nevada and I put forward in S. 384, the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act of 2003. But at least the provision passed by the Senate went much further than the one before us. The provision included in the conference report lets all the companies that used this gimmick prior to March of 2003 continue to avoid the taxes that their American-based competitors face. The Senate version would have cracked down on these tax dodgers to the tune of more than $3.1 billion over 10 years while this weak provision raises only $830 million. It is shocking that the House Republican conferees were willing to leave $2.3 billion in dodged taxes on the table when that money could have gone to implement Senator Landrieu's amendment that would offer real help to our activated guardsmen and reservists. I understand that during the conference negotiations, the Senate conferees offered an amendment that would have reinstated many of these important curbs on tax dodges. The amendment would have raised an additional $40 billion over 10 years. But, once again the House GOP refused to accept these anti-abuse measures, and the amendment was defeated on a party line vote. The problems with this legislation are not limited to the fact that we are letting tax dodgers off way too easy. At a time when many corporations pay no tax at all and corporate tax revenues are at historic lows, this bill is full of special interest tax breaks. It also includes new tax benefits for the offshore operations of U.S. multinational companies, such as allowing companies with earnings held overseas to bring them back at a tax rate lower than the rate paid on domestic profits. The cost of these international provisions is estimated at $43 billion over 10 years, but this estimate is misleadingly low because some of these provisions are ``temporary'' or do not kick in until later years. While I support incentives to create and support U.S.-based manufacturing jobs, I am concerned that some of these international provisions will provide an incentive for companies to keep resources, facilities, and employees abroad, and subsidize the movement of jobs and resources overseas. Furthermore, while the official cost estimate of this bill says that it is essentially budget neutral over the next 10 years, this paints a deceptively optimistic picture. Throughout the measure there are many gimmicks to keep the numbers even, like phasing in some of the tax cuts and setting up others as ``temporary.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, just extending the ``temporary'' provisions would reduce revenues by nearly $80 billion over the next 10 years. I am also troubled by the elimination of provisions pertaining to regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. According to a recent report by the Surgeon General, tobacco consumption by America's youth is one of our country's leading health risks. The Senate passed strong bipartisan provisions that would deal with both the FDA and tobacco regulation: provisions that would give the FDA sweeping authority to prevent overt marketing of tobacco products to children under the age of 18; provisions that would allow the FDA to regulate prior approval of statements on tobacco products; and provisions that allow the FDA to restrict the sale, distribution and promotion of tobacco if they are deemed to be a danger to public health. These provisions are essential to protecting our children from the dangers of smoking, but the House conferees have killed any chance in the near future to give the FDA the tools it needs in this critical area. I am also troubled by the exclusion of Senator Harkin's overtime amendment that would keep essential overtime protections for middle class working Americans. And finally, it seems unfathomable that in this $137 billion bill the conference committee would leave out the Senate provision sponsored by Senator Landrieu that would have helped the large number of our activated Guardsmen and Reservists who face a reduction in their salaries during activation by assisting those civilian employers who continue to pay these employees after they have been called up. While this legislation includes some provisions which I support, overall it falls far short of the bill which the Senate sent to conference, and I cannot support it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this evening on the campus of Michigan State University in Lansing I will be speaking on U.S. policy in Iraq. My conclusion is that just as it took a new administration to extract the United States from Vietnam, it will take a new administration to extract us from Iraq in a way which leaves that country stable and democratic. We cannot leave Iraq as we did Vietnam. Nor can we just continue a western occupation of a Muslim nation that is the target and magnet for violence and terror, and that has become more destabilizing than stabilizing. We must change course in Iraq--or else Iraq's future is not likely to be stability and democracy, and the legacy to the world of the Iraq war is likely to be greater turmoil and terror. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I will be making this evening be included in full at this point in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and my good friend, Senator Warner, in urging the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We began work on this bill with our mark-up in early May. Since that time, we have spent 5 weeks on the Senate floor and nearly 4 months in conference. This conference agreement would not have been possible without the strength and perseverance of Senator Warner. This conference report will promote the national defense, improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, and make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. Mr. President, we all know that our Armed Forces today are deployed in harms' way around the world. As we stand on the Senate floor today, more than 130,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in taking on an aggressive insurgency and winning the peace in Iraq, with tens of thousands more supporting the war effort from outside the country. At the same time, our military continues to bear the brunt of the continuing effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, keep the peace in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai, and contain the threat of North Korea--while also preparing to execute other missions in support of the national military strategy. It has been clear to many of us for some time now that the Army and Marine Corps are simply stretched too thin, and that additional troops are badly needed to meet our worldwide commitments. I am pleased that this bill takes an important step toward that objective by increasing the active duty end strength of the Army by 20,000 and the active duty end strength of the Marine Corps by 3,000. I am also pleased that the bill before us contains much of the amendment offered on the Senate floor by Senator Daschle and Senator Graham to provide expanded TRICARE benefits for the National Guard and Reserve members who have made so many sacrifices and contributed so much to our nation over the last three years. In particular, the conference report would: Make permanent the temporary authority for free TRICARE health care coverage for National Guard and Reserve members and their families up to 90 days before a mobilized service member reports for active duty and for 180 days after release from active duty; and Authorize a new TRICARE benefit for Guard and Reserve members and their families when the member is not on active duty. Under this provision, National Guard and Reserve members who are mobilized would be authorized, upon release from active duty, to enroll in TRICARE Prime for 1 year for every 90 days spent on active duty. This is the least that we can do for these brave men and women. The bill would take a number of other important steps to improve the lives of our men and women in uniform. For example, the bill would: Authorize a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel; Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger; Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of the family separation allowance; Improve the Survivor Benefit Plan by eliminating the reduction in SBP benefits for surviving spouses over age 62, phased in over 3\1/2\ years; Ensure fair treatment of our disabled veterans by repealing the phase-in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and VA disability pay to military retirees with service-connected disabilities rated as 100 percent; and Authorized a new program of educational assistance to members of the Selective Reserve, based on the GI Bill. The bill would also directly address a number of specific problems and issues that have arisen in the course of our continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. First, the bill would provide our Armed Forces new flexibility to respond to changing circumstances on the ground by authorizing the use of up to $300 million for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Iraq and Afghanistan, under which commanders may use funds for small humanitarian and reconstruction projects; authorizing the use of up to $500 million for assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan military or security forces to enhance their ability to combat terrorism and support U.S. or coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; and authorizing the Special Operations Command to expend up to $25 million of existing funds to provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals, engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by the United States special operations forces to combat terrorism; establishing a new rapid acquisition program to enable the Department of Defense to quickly acquire equipment needed by a combatant commander to eliminate deficiencies in equipment that have resulted in combat fatalities; and raising the thresholds for the use of streamlined acquisition procedures outside the United States in support of contingency operations. Second, the bill contains important language from amendments offered by Senators Durbin and Leahy on the Senate floor, reaffirming the prohibition against subjecting any person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States to ``torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.'' These provisions send an important message to the world that the United States will not permit, condone, tolerate, or encourage the kind of behavior so graphically depicted in the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We all know that the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have undermined the hard work and sacrifices of our military and tarnished the image of our armed forces. The provisions included in the conference report reaffirm that we are a Nation of laws and send the message that Congress will not accept mixed messages or ambiguous statements on the fundamental issue of human rights and dignity. The bill contains several other important provisions addressing ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include: A provision originally written by Senator Dodd, which authorizes reimbursement of service members and their families for purchases of body armor and other protective equipment at a time when the Department of Defense did not have sufficient protective gear in Iraq to protect our men and women in uniform; a provision addressing deficiencies in the oversight and management of contractors on the ground in Iraq, and requiring the issuance of specific guidance and regulations to enhance the safety of contractor employees and improve coordination between our armed forces and the contractors who are there to support their rebuilding efforts; and a provision reauthorizing and extending the CPA Inspector General to ensure that we have continuing oversight over fraud, waste and abuse in the expenditure of funds for the rebuilding of Iraq. The conference report also includes a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. These include: the Collins-Levin amendment permitting federal employees to be heard, for the first time, in bid protests appealing the results of public-private competitions; a provision that would extend the authority for energy savings performance contracts for an additional 2 years, enabling federal agencies to save hundreds of millions of dollars through improved energy efficiency; a provision that should help resolve the controversy over the Air Force's proposed lease of tanker aircraft by prohibiting the Air Force from entering a lease and instead requiring the use of a traditional multi-year contract; a provision that would require the Department of Defense to develop and implement a business enterprise architecture to gain better control over its finances; and a provision directing the Secretary of Defense to develop policies and regulations to discourage other countries from imposing ``offset agreements'' in defense trade, and thereby undermining our defense industrial base. Finally, I am pleased that the conference report contains a series of provisions that will establish a workers' compensation-like program for nuclear workers who have cancers and other occupational-related injuries. The program will be administered by the Department of Labor and establishes a compensation scheme for both employees and survivors. Covered employees would receive the compensation benefits, as well as medical benefits under the provisions. The total amount of compensation under the provision would be capped at $250,000. Also included are provisions that would extend to uranium miners the opportunity to seek this workers' compensation-like benefit. Employees can elect to apply for this benefit or they may choose to remain in their individual state's workers' compensation system. Mr. President, this is a good conference report, but no conference report is perfect. I strongly disagree with a provision in the bill that would attempt to transfer from the Department of Defense to the Treasury the responsibility to provide the funding for military health care. Programs do not become ``free'' just because they are moved outside the Defense budget. That is why this provision was strongly opposed by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. I am deeply disappointed that the House conferees refused to accept important Senate provisions addressing hate crimes. Acts of violence and bigotry based on factors like race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability can undermine our nation's fabric by placing in question our continuing commitment to acceptance and diversity. The Kennedy-Smith hate crimes bill would address this problem head-on. The Senate has now passed the hate crimes bill on two separate occasions, and each time, the House has refused even to consider the provision on the merits. I am equally disappointed that the House refused to include the Boxer amendment on abortion. Under the law as it stands today, Medicare funds may be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, but Department of Defense funds may not. This kind of discrimination against women who put their lives on the line for their country is incomprehensible to me. I am disappointed that, faced with a veto threat, we were able to get less than half of the provisions that we wanted to codify sound practices in public-private competition of work currently performed by government employees. Finally, I am disappointed that this conference report includes a House provision reducing the authority of the base closure commission to address bases not recommended for closure or realignment by the Secretary of Defense. Despite my concerns about these issues, I will vote for this bill because it contains so many other provisions that are so important for our national defense and for our men and women and uniform. At a time when our armed forces are under hostile fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is vitally important that we enact a defense authorization bill that provides the training and equipment that our military needs and the compensation and benefits that they deserve. I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, once again for the effective leadership that he provided in bringing this bill through conference and back to the Senate floor. Senator Warner's inclusiveness and openness in the way he manages the Committee and the conference have resulted in a far better bill than we would otherwise have had. I would also like to thank the minority members of our Committee for the able work that they have done in support of this bill throughout the past year, starting with hearings in the Spring, and continuing through mark-up, floor deliberation, and conference. We have a truly talented group of members, whose dedication to the national defense shows in their work. I would be remiss if I did not also mention the work of our dedicated committee staff, on both sides of the aisle. It is the hard work of this staff--under the able leadership of Judy Ansley and Rick DeBobes-- that has made this bill possible. Rick and Judy and the staff have been working literally around the clock for the last month to put this conference report, and I think that the Senate owes a debt of gratitude to every one of them. On the Majority staff Judy Ansley, Chuck Alsup, June Borawski, Leah Brewer, Alison Brill, Jennifer Cave, David Cherington, Marie Dickenson, Regine Dubey, Andy Florell, Brian Green, Bill Greenwalt, Bruce Hock, Gary Howard, Jennifer Key, Greg Kiley, Tom MacKenzie, Elaine McCusker, Lucian Niemeyer, Stan O'Connor, Cindy Pearson, Paula Philbin, Ben Rubin, Lynn Rusten, Katie Sendak, Joe Sixeas, Rob Soofer, Diana Tabler, Dick Walsh, Bridget Ward, Nick West, and Kelley Wilson. On the Minority staff Rick DeBobes, Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Brie Eisen, Evelyn Farkas, Richard Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, Bridget Higgins, Mike Kuiken, Maren Leed, Gary Leeling, Peter Levine, Mike McCord, Bill Monahan, and Arun Seraphin. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency. The mission of this agency is to help low-income, elderly and disabled individuals become self-sufficient, and OLHSA has been extremely successful in this pursuit. With over 70 programs, OLHSA has assisted over 30,000 low-income, elderly and disabled individuals living in Oakland and Livingston counties become more self- reliant, thereby improving their quality of life. Over the last forty years, the efforts of OLHSA have improved the lives and livelihoods of Michigan citizens across the two counties. Elderly citizens in Southeastern Michigan can turn to OLHSA for a variety of resources and services. Senior centers, located in Pontiac and Novi, provide facilities for older adults to eat nutritious meals, attend exercise classes and socialize. The Senior AIDES program provides employment and training opportunities for older adults, opening the door to career options that would otherwise be unavailable because of their age and/or inexperience. Volunteers are dispatched to homes around the community to assist elderly individuals with household chores and yard work that they can no longer perform themselves. The Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency also provides support and advocacy to low-income families and other struggling individuals. If a family or an individual is in an emergency situation, they can turn to OLHSA for immediate help. OLHSA provides the necessary assistance to those in need through food banks, emergency utility assistance and emergency housing. In addition, the Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency provides long-term aid to the surrounding community. OLHSA's Financial Education Program offers informational classes on money management, tax law, insurance options and a variety of other topics. It also provides counseling on childcare, nutrition and other problems that face the community. Those who take advantage of these classes and counseling sessions acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make it on their own and overcome their problems. OLHSA has worked consistently to reduce the causes and consequences of poverty in Oakland and Livingston counties, and I know I can speak for my constituents when I say the people of Michigan sincerely appreciate the good work they have done. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in offering congratulations to the Oakland Livingston Human Services Agency on its 40th anniversary. We recognize and thank the dedicated staff and volunteers who have made the organization successful over the years, and I wish them many more years of service to the community.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do not support the McCain amendment to grant appropriation powers, in addition to oversight powers, on intelligence matters to the Senate Intelligence Committee. I am a member of the Intelligence Committee and I support the effort in this resolution to strengthen the oversight capabilities of the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, I cannot support this amendment. Because much of the work done by the Intelligence Committee is necessarily done in closed session, it is all the more important to have the checks and balances of additional committees involved in the review and funding decisions concerning intelligence activities. Intelligence matters, by their nature, require secrecy. However, democracy works best with active and open debate. For this reason, it is critical that this process, while secret, involve more than a small number of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to join my colleagues in supporting the need for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barrier and pledge to work with my Great Lakes colleagues and Senator Jeffords to address the invasive species problems in Lake Champlain through the authorization of a dispersal barrier. I also am pleased to join my colleagues in our pledge to move the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act forward in the next Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it has been nearly a month since Republican congressional leadership and the President allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. This lack of action made it potentially easier for criminals and terrorists to acquire 19 previously banned assault weapons that could be used to harm innocent Americans. Adding insult to injury, the House of Representatives last week passed legislation that would make families in the Nation's capital even more susceptible to gun crime. The misnamed District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, which passed the House last week, would repeal a local law in Washington, DC that bans the sale and possession of unregistered firearms, requires firearm registration, imposes commonsense safe storage requirements, and bans semiautomatic weapons in the District. Should this bill become law, tourists and especially those who live and work in our Nation's capital will face a considerably greater threat of gun violence. According to the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, this bill would roll back gun laws in D.C. to a point that it would be legal to possess a loaded assault rifle on city streets without a permit. Over the strong objections of local leaders, the Republican-controlled House made the unwise decision to take up and pass this legislation even as we face the increased threat of terrorism. Hopefully the Senate will not make the same mistake. Unfortunately, instead of making progress on the issue of gun safety, we seem to be retreating. Instead of strengthening laws that would help prevent future gun crimes and terrorist attacks, they are being weakened giving potential criminals and terrorists easier access to weapons that have no place on our streets. I will continue to work toward reversing this course and toward passing sensible gun safety legislation that will make our communities more, instead of less, safe.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator can take his time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Virginia and I be recognized to offer a Warner-Levin amendment which which has now been worked out and cleared. I think Senator Warner is somewhere nearby. If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent to put us next in line with that amendment, which is a modified amendment and has been agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my concern about the definition of intelligence programs that the budget execution authority would be transferred to relates to the definition in the bill that, in turn, relates to the Defense Intelligence Agency. There are a number of Defense Intelligence Agency programs which, in my judgment, should not have their budget execution authority transferred to the new national intelligence program. Specifically, there are three programs. These are a small set of DIA programs but, nonetheless, there are three in particular to which I refer. First is the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Second is the intelligence staff of the combatant commanders. Third is certain sensitive communications systems which support the Department of Defense command structure. The principal purpose of those programs is to support joint or tactical military operations, and I think it would be a mistake to transfer the budget execution authority for those three programs to the national intelligence director. They are just simply too deeply embedded in supporting joint or tactical military operations for that to make sense. However, rather than trying to resolve that debate here and rather than having the bill transfer the budget execution to the national intelligence program, what we have arrived at is a compromise which does the same thing relative to these programs, as Senator Warner just outlined, relative to a number of other programs; that is, we assign and task the new national intelligence director and the Secretary of Defense to review these DIA programs, then to make a recommendation as to where the budget execution ought to rest, whether it should be in the national intelligence program or in the Department of Defense, and then to make a recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget and then to the President who would make the decision on this issue. The review would be an expedited review. It would not take more than 60 days. But it would make it possible to have this decision in review based on the facts relating to this program rather than to make an abstract judgment about all programs in the Defense Intelligence Agency in this bill. During this period of review, we have agreed that nothing would be done to prejudice the outcome of this review. With the adoption of this amendment, assuming it is adopted, then my amendment No. 3810 will be withdrawn because that is the purpose of this amendment. Again, as I did with another amendment earlier today, I thank the managers of the bill for working with us to make this possible. It is a very rational approach, as well as a good compromise to a very complicated situation. We want to avoid--we want lines to be clear, but we do not want them to be arbitrary in a way which will force budget execution of programs to be where they logically should not be. I also thank Senator Warner for his leadership on a very related issue. The way in which we have addressed these two issues is similar but not exactly the same. It just makes a lot of sense. I thank the managers for their willingness to work with us on this matter.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank our colleagues and managers of the bill and, as always, thank Senator Warner. The managers have worked so well with us, and I want to thank them for that, and also thank them for the way they worked with each other. Amendment No. 3810, Withdrawn

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3810 now be withdrawn since that was covered in the amendment which was just adopted.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, military personnel comprise an important part of the national intelligence community. Managing military personnel is the appropriate function of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments. The bill, as drafted, would permit the transfer of military personnel within the national intelligence program. This amendment strikes that language and does not permit the transfer of the military personnel within the national intelligence program. The second-degree amendment makes it clear that the positions, of course, cannot be transferred. In other words, providing that the people who are in those positions are not transferred by the national intelligence director, if it is just the money for the positions, which providing it falls within the scope of reprogramming, for instance, and can be done in any event; providing it is the positions or the money attached to the positions that are transferred from one part of the intelligence community to another, that we do not prevent. It is the transfer of uniformed people that cannot be accepted, and this amendment would prevent that from happening. So if we are in a situation, for instance, where the national intelligence director says, I want those five people from a particular agency, and if these are uniform military personnel, that would not be possible when my amendment is adopted. The national intelligence director would be able to transfer positions, or the money, and say $400,000 or $1 million or whatever, providing, again, it is within or below the limit that is established, which would require programming approval by the Congress; providing it is below that limit, the NID continues to have that authority, which he would have in any event, to transfer funds or positions from one place to another. So we don't touch the money or the positions. However, we maintain a chain of command. We maintain military careers. These are uniform military careers, and we do not have an outside civilian person changing that career by transferring a uniform military person from one place to another. I thank my colleagues, the managers of the bill, for working out this language with us. It is a very important change in terms of military careers, in terms of military personnel, in terms of the management of military personnel, in terms of morale. But it does not disturb, again, the budgetary power or the shifting around of budgets--or billets, as we call them--or positions, providing, again, they are underneath and within the limits established by the reprogramming procedures that have been established, where individual agency heads are allowed to transfer money from one place to another. If it is above that limit, it is established by the reprogramming procedures, then, of course, they have to go through the normal reprogramming process before money can be transferred from one place to another.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, my thanks to the managers, not just for their work on this amendment, but their work generally on this bill. It has been exemplary and a model to all of us in this Senate as to how we can achieve things on a bipartisan basis. They worked together beautifully, and I commend them for it.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will not vote to invoke cloture on the National Intelligence reform bill at this time. This legislation reforming the intelligence agencies of our Government is a critical step in strengthening our national defense and our homeland security. If this cloture vote succeeds, it will prematurely cut off debate and prevent relevant amendments which could improve this legislation from being considered by the Senate. There are about 57 amendments currently pending before the Senate on this bill and perhaps half will be prevented from even being considered if cloture is invoked. This is far-reaching and complex legislation which reorganizes the basic elements of our intelligence community. We cannot afford to get it wrong or we will end up making us less secure. We owe it to our constituents and the Nation, if necessary, to stay a few days longer in Washington and finish the job right. Frustrating the right of Senators to offer relevant amendments aimed at improving this legislation is unwise.