Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. I think the business before us is to dispose of the Graham of South Carolina second-degree amendment and then the underlying Daschle amendment. I do not know if any of the opponents of the two amendments are on the floor to speak, but I think we should dispose of those. It is my understanding that after those amendments are disposed of, Senator Jack Reed will be ready to proceed with an amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Relative to bills that come before them. These are complex bills. I assume they consult all the time. I cannot imagine it is unusual for the Parliamentarian to talk to either Members of the Senate or to our staff. By the way, this requirement of relevance is not unusual. I just ask the Parliamentarian, is this an uncommon provision? It is not an uncommon provision. In fact, it seems to me, in a bill that recently came before us it had a provision, although I cannot remember which one it was--but it is not an uncommon provision. It was not intended to prevent any particular amendment. As the Senator from Virginia said, it was just simply intended to give some kind of parameter to a very lengthy and complex bill. It was not aimed at a BRAC amendment or aimed at any particular amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. There are all kinds of amendments that have not been considered. Senator Reed is one human being who has taken upon himself a huge amount of material to digest and present to the committee. He did a magnificent job. I think my good friend from Virginia would agree with that. There are other things which, as a matter of time, one is not able to put together and present to the committee at that moment but which are important to present to the entire Senate. I don't think we can fault Senator Reed in that regard. That is purely a matter, it seems to me, of what human limitations might be in terms of what one human being can do. But he surely did more than his share in terms of the work that was presented to the committee.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will withhold that for a moment, I would like to add one quick comment on this amendment as to what the stakes are. First, I want to commend Senator Reed for bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. This is not, in all fairness, simply a reporting amendment. This is not just more reports. This tells the Missile Defense Office to adopt performance criteria which are measurable, adopt an operational test plan for your systems, adopt a timetable, all of which can be changed any time they want to. I don't think it is fair to characterize this as some inflexible thing which is laid upon the Ballistic Missile Defense Office. It is highly flexible. It just tells the Ballistic Missile Defense Office to do whatever other program managers do, of every major weapons system--adopt a measurable performance criteria and adopt an operational test plan, including some kind of timetable. It is neither inflexible, nor is it unusual. I don't know of any other major weapons system that does not have these kind of criteria. I just didn't agree with that characterization of it. Where I do agree totally with our chairman is that if there is a way to work this matter out, it should be worked out. This is an important system. The issue is no longer whether a ballistic missile defense is going to be fielded. That is not the issue anymore. The question now is whether it will have any kind of performance criteria by which it can be judged. That is the issue. It seems to me we ought to be grateful as a body to the Senator from Rhode Island for bringing to our attention the fact that these important measurements are absent. But in fairness, I think it is not simply more reports to the Congress. It is saying to the Ballistic Missile Defense Office: We want you to adopt performance criteria that are measurable. It is not a matter of reporting to us. It is a matter of doing it for yourself and for the American people. That is what the issue is here. Send us a copy, by the way, will you?

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if the Senator from North Dakota was asking me do I believe that a BRAC amendment is germane to this bill, not relevant but germane to this bill--look up the word ``germane'' in the dictionary--it sure sounds germane to me. But then I ask the Parliamentarian if it is germane, and the Parliamentarian says, no, it is not germane to this bill, and if this were a postcloture situation, it would be allowed, the Senator could get up and ask, Does the Senator from Michigan really believe the BRAC amendment should not be allowed on this bill because under the rules of the Senate it is apparently not germane? The Parliamentarian has told us that. What intrigues me is the relevance standard which the Senator from North Dakota has raised as to whether or not, in fact, there has been a change. I use the words ``whether or not'' there has been a change in the standard of relevancy. It seems to me that is an important issue for this body to review, as to whether there has been a change in that definition. I haven't talked to the Parliamentarian about it. I don't know. Does the Senator from North Dakota suggest that there has been a change? Whether there is, has been, would be or not, we should know as a body what the standard of relevance is and whether there has been a change and, if so, how did it come about. I hope the Parliamentarian, given this exchange, would advise the Senate as to the standard of relevance and as to whether or not there has been a change in that standard. I am not suggesting, obviously, that the Parliamentarian speak on the floor at this point. I am suggesting the Parliamentarian advise the Senate in some written form relative to the standard of relevancy because the Senator is raising an absolutely essential issue. We use the word ``relevant'' here all the time. If there is a change in the definition of that word, then it seems to me we ought to know about it and decide whether or not we are comfortable with it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I am glad we are not in a trial courtroom because you surely don't have me nailed here.

Mr. LEVIN. And the Senator's amendment is useful.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. The Reed amendment, according to my dear friend from Virginia, would reimpose the prohibition on development that was just repealed in the bill's language and left in because of the defeat of the Feinstein amendment. That is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. It is quite clear what the Senator from Rhode Island and I want to do, which is maintain a prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons. The difference is exactly what the Senator from Rhode Island said, which is that his amendment, which I have cosponsored, maintains a prohibition on development; whereas the amendment of the Senator from Virginia says the administration would have to come back for reauthorization. The Senator from Virginia's amendment is valuable. As a matter of fact, I offered the amendment the Senator from Virginia is offering tonight in committee. It was defeated by one vote.

Mr. LEVIN. In our committee I offered the amendment saying, come back for reauthorization because under the circumstances, having defeated what we just had previously defeated in committee, I thought that was the best that could be achieved. And we could not achieve that because it was defeated by a 13-to-12 vote. I don't doubt there is value to what the Senator from Virginia is doing.

Mr. LEVIN. When the Senator says it reimposes the limitation on development, the Senator is correct. It does do that.

Mr. LEVIN. Correct. It is at least as simple as the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, which I understand is really a substitute.

Mr. LEVIN. On the first page.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am just comparing the two amendments. It seems to me in terms of directives, the simplicity of the Reed amendment has it all over the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. It is shorter than the Senator's amendment, if I am reading this amendment correctly. I want to make sure I have the right amendment before I make this statement. It looks like on page 2 at least there are 10 lines of type; is that correct? Am I looking at the correct amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just voted to authorize the research of new nuclear weapons for the first time since 1993. We have removed a prohibition on research which could lead to the production of nuclear weapons. This is a major shift, in my judgment, a terribly mistaken shift in policy because of the message it so clearly sends to the world that we are now going to walk down the road we are telling the rest of the world not to walk down. The amendment which has been offered by Senator Reed, of which I am a cosponsor, starts from that point. However, as the Senator from Rhode Island just described, it does not seek in any way to reverse what the Senate just did relative to the research that the opponents of the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment said was so important to protect. It accepts the decision of the Senate and the opponents of the Feinstein- Kennedy amendment--the argument made that research should not be prohibited. Senator Reed's amendment does not prohibit research. Rather, it says we should not allow the development of these new weapons and, of course, any subsequent testing or deployment of those weapons; that if we are going to let the world know we are not committed to the deployment and the development of new weapons, we have to send a clear signal to the world of some kind that even though research would be allowed, nonetheless we are not going to raise the prohibition or lift the prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons. I believe it was a mistake to repeal the Spratt-Furse language. I think what we are doing is telling the North Koreas and the Irans of the world that we are not going to tolerate your having nuclear weapons, but we are going to develop new nuclear weapons ourselves. It is a totally inconsistent position. It undermines our whole position and our standing in the world to argue that nations such as North Korea and Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It is mighty difficult to persuade even our Allies in the world that we should take strong measures to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, and we should take strong measures to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including working with the Russians to try to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but, oh, by the way, we are going to do research and development on new nuclear weapons. As the Senator from Rhode Island and others have said, this isn't just a matter of research, because the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters puts it this way: ``If a hydrogen bomb could be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded''--I presume speaking for the administration. So nobody should be, in any way, fooled that what we are talking about is just simply research. Unless we put a prohibition in to stop the development of these weapons, what the world will believe--and I think accurately--is that it is not just research, it is development. Then, in the words of Fred Celec, the Deputy Assistant Secretary on nuclear matters: It will get fielded. Now, the opponents of the last amendment said: Well, that is not what we are trying to do here. We are not trying to make any commitment to fielding a weapon or even developing a weapon. All we are talking about is research. And since the Spratt amendment prohibits research on weapons which could lead to their deployment and to their production, we think the Spratt amendment simply goes too far and should be repealed. So what the Senator from Rhode Island does in his amendment is say: Well, then, for Heaven's sake, consistent with that--and to avoid sending a message which even the opponents of the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment said they do not want to send--let us keep the prohibition on the development of new nuclear weapons. That is all the amendment offered by Senator Reed does. It seems to me it is the least we can do to avoid sending a signal from the U.S. Senate that this country is now going down a road that we are saying no country should go down, which is the road of new nuclear weapons. The former Assistant Energy Secretary, Rose Gottemoeller, in March of 2003 put it this way: Other countries watch us like a hawk. They are very, very attentive to what we do in the nuclear arena. This is going to be considered another step in the tectonic shift. She was referring to the repeal of the Spratt-Furse language. I think people abroad will interpret this as part of a really enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to renuclearize. And I think definitely there's going to be an impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the world. The greatest threat we face is the terrorist threat and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We should do what we can to avoid sending a signal to the world that we are committed to the development of new nuclear weapons. The prohibition now has been lifted on research and development of new nuclear weapons, which could lead to their production. Unless we adopt the Reed amendment, it will appear to the world-- accurately--that this Senate is committed to the development of new nuclear weapons. I hope we are not going to make that commitment. It would be a terrible mistake for what it would unleash. In order to avoid that commitment from being made, or from appearing to be made, to the rest of the world, we need the Reed language, which says that we are going to keep the prohibition of Spratt-Furse from the development stage on. The Senate has spoken relative to research. The words again of the opponents, who have said: My Heavens, under Spratt-Furse, you can't even do the research. Surely, we ought to allow scientists to think. The Reed amendment is consistent with what the opponents of Feinstein-Kennedy said was their main reason for opposing the prohibition that exists in law. So I would hope that we could adopt the language that is in Senator Reed's amendment, to indicate we, in fact, are not committed to the development of new nuclear weapons, and that we would not march down a road when we tell other nations they must not march down that road. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment of Senator Warner.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold for just a moment.

Mr. LEVIN. I am willing to cut my time down as well. I haven't talked to Senator Feinstein, who has already cut her time down.

Mr. LEVIN. Prior to that, Senator Byrd wanted to speak. I wanted to speak for 10 minutes, and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Akaka want to speak as well.

Mr. LEVIN. Secondly, there will be additional speakers beyond that. I would not want to suggest that the debate would end then because we have additional speakers.

Mr. LEVIN. I am delighted that the Senator from Virginia has offered this as a second-degree amendment. Believe me, if the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island is defeated by the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia as a substitute, all of us would be very supportive of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. Let it be clear that while there is value in it, there is not as much value in it as the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island. It is not as clear a statement to the world that we are not committed to the development of new nuclear weapons. What the Reed amendment says is: Development of these new weapons is prohibited. That is a very clear statement. The clarity of that statement is absolutely pure. It is a lot clearer in terms of assuring the world that we are not committed to the development of new nuclear weapons than is a statement such as the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia which is, if you want to develop, come back to us for authorization. I say that in all sincerity. I look the Senator from Virginia in the eye and say: His amendment, in my book, has value but not nearly the value of the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island. I hope we will adopt the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island and defeat the substitute offered by the Senator from Virginia. But should the substitute prevail, I would in all good conscience vote for the substitute amendment if, in fact, it is substituted for the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island. Nonetheless, there is a much stronger statement made of reassurance to the world, a statement to the North Koreas and the Irans of the world, that we are not committed to developing new nuclear weapons, if we say exactly that. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island says. We are not going to proceed with the development, even though we are going to allow research on these new nuclear weapons. I hope, again, the substitute is not agreed to and that the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island is agreed to. Again, I commend the Senator from Virginia because I do think that there is a contribution in his substitute amendment which is better than just simply repealing the Spratt-Furse language.