Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. As manager of the bill, I say to my friend from North Carolina I did not hear that last unanimous consent request. I am sorry.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I would now like to address the language that we are removing from the bill. First, we are removing language that would have expressly stated that DOD may not be required to purchase integral or embedded products from Federal Prison Industries. This provision was intended to address FPI's practice of using its mandatory source status to insist that it get a share of projects that would ordinarily be performed by a single general contractor. While we believe that some of FPI's practices in this area have been abusive, we are dropping this language from the bill because we do not believe that it is necessary. Since the language in the bill would end FPI's mandatory source status, FPI would no longer have the leverage it has used in the past to insist that contracts be divided up, that contract specifications specifically require the use of FPI products, or that subcontracts be awarded to FPI. Let me be clear. We expect FPI's abusive practices to end under this provision. It is our belief that with the elimination of the mandatory preference, these practices will come to a stop. Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?

Mr. LEVIN. Last week, the Senate voted 74-24 to table an amendment that would have removed the Federal Prison Industries provision from the bill. This vote was an overwhelming victory for those who believe, as I do, that Federal Prison Industries should not be able to prohibit private sector companies and their employees from bidding on federal contracts that are paid for with their tax dollars. Under Section 821 of the bill, which has now been endorsed by the full Senate, FPI's ``mandatory preference'' would come to an end, and Federal Prison Industries would have to compete for future Department of Defense contracts. Under this provision, the Department of Defense, not Federal Prison Industries, would be responsible for determining whether Federal Prison Industries can best meet the Department's needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery. If DOD determines that the FPI product is not the best available in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery, the Department is directed to purchase the product on a competitive basis. Today, we are agreeing to an amendment that would modify the Federal Prison Industries provision. In particular, this amendment would delete language from the bill which specifically addresses: (1) DOD purchases of integral or embedded products from FPI; (2) DOD purchases of national security systems from FPI; and (3) DOD purchases in amounts less than the micropurchase threshold of $2500. The first thing that I would like to emphasize about this amendment is that it does not in any way alter or undermine the key language in the provision, which would end FPI's mandatory preference and allow private companies to compete against FPI for Department of Defense contracts. Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Thomas and Senator Gramm of Texas.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his continuing leadership. He was an absolutely marvelous chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee and took that committee in a direction that really foresaw some of the activities that we have seen in the year since he began that effort. For that foresight we are all in his debt. He has continued that as ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee now, with Senator Landrieu as Chair. But he has really been way, way ahead of his time. He has prodded us, as he used the image, in more ways than one and more times than just a few. I know the leadership is discussing some kind of a select committee. Hopefully they will come to some kind of conclusion so we can act with one voice. He has been sometimes a lone voice, often a voice with a lot of support--but nonetheless a strong voice in that direction. I thank him again as I often have publicly and privately for his extraordinary work on our committee and in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I know of no further germane amendments anyone intends to offer. If there are such germane amendments that have been filed, I hope somebody will let us know very quickly. Otherwise, as soon as we dispose of the Allard amendment, we will want to presumably go to third reading.

Mr. LEVIN. That is my understanding, and there will be a voice vote on this matter. The Allard amendment is germane. My understanding is he will modify that amendment, and he will then agree to a voice vote on it.

Mr. LEVIN. There is objection to scheduling debate on a subsequent bill. I have to object, if that is a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from New Jersey for a number of things: First, for voting for cloture in a very difficult situation where he had an amendment about which he feels so strongly, which I happen to support. The amendment was also, of course, cosponsored by Senators Carper and Corzine. Even though this amendment would not be in order after the cloture vote, the stakes were so great in terms of the Nation's security to get this bill passed that we had a strong vote for cloture nonetheless. This was true of the Senator from New Jersey and a number of other Senators who knew their amendments would not be in order if cloture, in fact, were invoked. I thank him for putting that need of this Nation so high that even though this amendment which is so important then could not be made germane, nonetheless cloture was voted for. We understand the Defense Department is going to express a view on this matter to the Federal Trade Commission, if it has not already done so, within the next few days. While I am not in a position to take a position on the merits because I do not know enough about the merits, and I would not do it anyway, I nonetheless believe it is important that the Department of Defense express itself, as the Senator's amendment provided for, since the amendment simply said it was the sense of the Senate the Department of Defense should express its views on the antitrust implications of the joint venture described in subsection A to the FTC not later than 30 days after enactment. I felt that was a very reasonable approach. It did not weigh in on the merits. It simply said this matter was so important the Defense Department should express its views. The Senator has my assurance that if for any reason the Defense Department does not express its views to the FTC before we complete conference, or if it has not already done so, I would take whatever steps I could to make sure that, in fact, it does so before we bring back the conference report to the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senator Warner, his staff, and all the Members of the Armed Services Committee for working in such a spirit of unity. Our committee always is able to come together on national security matters. It has always been a joy to work on the Armed Services Committee because that committee works in such a bipartisan spirit. There are differences from time to time, but those differences are resolved in ways which contribute to the security of this Nation. Now that we are in an emergency situation, more than ever it is essential that this committee help lead the way, in a way that does not avoid debate on issues but, where we were unable to resolve issues, that they be deferred. There are some issues that have been deferred to a later date for reasons I expressed at great length yesterday. The Presiding Officer had an opportunity to listen to that. We have preserved our position on that. It is an important position, and we will raise that if and when the circumstances are appropriate. But for the time being, what is important is that this Senate now has a chance to express with one unified voice support for the men and women in the military, to make sure they have everything they need; that they have the resources, training, the equipment; that they have the pay; that they have the housing. We have done everything we can, working with the administration, to speak with one strong and unified voice that the men and women in the military should be able to count on us in normal times and surely they ought to be able to count on us in these emergency times. I believe very firmly this bill does exactly that. It could not have been accomplished, again, without the assistance of our staffs. They are extraordinary. Again, Senator Warner, as always, has worked very closely to make sure we could act together. For that I am grateful. I think the Nation is in his debt. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield, let me also say, as someone who supports those amendments, that I will be working very hard in conference to see if we can find some way that is permitted in conference to get some of those issues resolved. I happen to be one who strongly supports those amendments. I thank him.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. First, I thank my dear friend from Virginia for all his work on this bill, for his comments, his determination to proceed on a bipartisan basis to a real test of wills. This vote we are now about to cast will decide whether we are going to have this year a Defense authorization bill which will provide funds for our military, pay raises for our men and women in the military, housing allowances which are desperately needed, the equipment that they need in order to prepare and to go to war, should that be their fate, and it surely looks as though that is now clearly ahead. What we are hoping for, looking for this morning, is a strong bipartisan expression of national resolve and national unity by voting for cloture on this bill. It is the only way we will complete action on this bill. There has been an effort to debate matters on this bill that are unrelated, important matters but not matters that are directly related to providing and equipping the men and women in our forces. This is the bill that provides the authorization required by the Department of Defense for their programs for the year 2002 that also includes the provisions for the Department of Energy. The bill is consistent with the national security priorities of the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. At a time when we are deploying forces around the world and mobilizing our National Guard and Reserve units to augment our active forces, it is a bill which is essential to our national security. I am hoping that any partisan differences will be set aside. I am hoping that differences over particular provisions can be set aside. None of us agree with every provision in this bill. Some of us have taken steps to make sure that this bill could pass on a bipartisan basis and some of those steps have been very difficult steps for many of us to take. Many of us have had to take steps to preserve our rights to debate certain issues at a later time rather than at this moment in our history. I know that personally because I am one of those persons who has had to make a decision on language which I crafted and fought so hard for in committee as chairman, to set aside that issue--not to bury it; we are talking here national missile defense, but to save that debate for another day when two things could happen. One, we could debate it in an environment which makes it possible for the pros and cons of that issue to be debated; second, at least to have a chance of prevailing on the issue, which is not possible under the current circumstances. Nonetheless, the point is, some of us, on both sides of the aisle, have taken difficult steps. Some who oppose the BRAC provision, by the way--I am looking at our Presiding Officer--are faced with a decision: Will they vote for cloture on a bill which contains a provision to which they object? This was a close vote on BRAC, something like 53-47, if I remember. That means some of us who very much oppose that provision are now faced with a cloture vote. Are they going to vote to bring to an end debate on a bill that contains a provision to which they so strongly object? I am confident that most of the Senators who voted against the BRAC provision nonetheless will see that the bill overall is essential to our national security and to the well-being of our forces and to their success. This bill contains a pay raise for military members that ranges from 5 percent to 10 percent depending on grade, the largest pay raise in two decades. We have been making progress on pay by the way. The last administration, as well as this one, has been making significant progress in making more adequate our pay for men and women in the Armed Forces. So we have the largest pay raise in two decades. We have authority and authorization for funding to increase the basic allowance for housing to eliminate the difference between the allowance that military members receive and the actual out-of-pocket expenses, and we are doing this now, a full 2 years earlier than the Defense Department's plan. So we are trying to eliminate that differential a lot faster than we had planned. Our bill extends and modifies the authority to pay 18 different bonuses and special pays to military members in order to recruit and retain a high-quality force. We authorize new accession bonuses for military services to offer officers in critical skills. We authorize funding for a new TRICARE for Life Program that we enacted last year for military retirees over the age of 65. All of this is hanging in the balance. The question is whether or not those who favor a debate on a comprehensive energy bill are going to use that issue and their inability to get it debated on this bill as an excuse to vote against this bill, or whether or not some who oppose the BRAC provision are now going to vote against cloture in order to bring down a bill which contains provisions which are so critical to the well-being of the men and women in the military and the success of their operations. There are many other provisions in this bill which I will just briefly summarize. We have multiyear authority for the F-18E/F and the C-17 aircraft programs. We have a new round, as I have mentioned, of base closures in the year 2003, which the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have told us is critically needed for the improvement of DOD facilities in the future. We repeal a limit on the dismantlement of certain strategic delivery systems. The last administration wanted us to get rid of this restriction. The uniformed military wanted us to get rid of this restriction. Their civilian leadership wants to get rid of this restriction. This administration wants to get rid of the restriction in order to reduce the size of our offensive nuclear forces. We have missiles that our military does not want--nuclear-capable missiles with nuclear warheads on them. The military says: we do not want them; we do not need them; it costs us money to maintain them. Yet Congress has forced the military to keep these systems that they do not want. This administration says please get rid of this limit. The last administration said please get rid of it. Again, our administration and military want us to get rid of it. Congress now has a chance to get out of this artificial and costly and ineffective restriction on the limitation/reduction of nuclear forces. We have had a lot of opportunities to amend this bill. We have been debating it over the course now of 6 days. We have adopted 76 amendments. Two amendments have been tabled. One amendment has been withdrawn. We have tried to get a finite list of amendments so debate could be finally brought to an end, so we could finally have a bill. As is usually done in the Senate, an effort is made to say bring your amendments here, tell us what you want to offer, and let's agree on a so-called finite list of amendments. There has been an unwillingness to do that. The people who are trying to bring to the floor a debate on a matter unrelated to the matters in this bill have said they will not agree to such a finite list. So here we are in a situation where we have no way to bring debate on this bill to an end without cloture. We are more than willing to consider any relevant amendment, any germane amendment. But what we cannot do is just set aside the Defense authorization bill to begin a week-long or month-long debate on an energy bill. That is what we cannot do if we are going to act on behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces, and to try to assure their success when they go into combat. So that is the dilemma that we have had. The managers have worked hard, as Senator Reid has mentioned. I thank him very much for his comments. Our leadership has worked hard to get that finite list. We have not been able to do it. Now we face a very clear vote as to whether or not we are going to demonstrate the support for our Armed Forces by voting for cloture on this bill. That is the simple issue. It has come down to that. We are not trying to preclude anybody from offering a relevant or germane amendment. Quite the opposite. We have been here now for days saying bring your amendments to the floor. It is going to come down to this vote. I am very much afraid that unless we get cloture the Defense authorization bill, so important to our forces, is going nowhere this year. That would be a horrendous message to send to the men and women and to the Nation and to the world. I hope that message will not be sent; rather, a message of unity and determination will be sent by a strong bipartisan vote for cloture on this bill. Madam President, I know there are others who are going to want to speak between now and 10 o'clock. I will reserve the remainder of my time. I know Senator Warner has his time, the remainder, reserved. I wonder if we could ask the Chair how much time we each have reserved?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I do not see anyone else who wants to speak, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I know the hour of 10 has arrived. I thank my good friend from Virginia for his work in his conference. I am optimistic, with his words now and with Senator McCain's efforts and others in the Republican conference, that we now have an opportunity to get cloture. We hope that is true. We will find out shortly. The stakes here are great. I yield any time that I have.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon be granted 3 minutes without changing the time for the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield 10 minutes if they need it?

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I wonder whether or not that amount of time is sufficient for both of them.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider that vote.