Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the statement of the Senator from Minnesota, we return to the Defense authorization bill and Senator Dodd be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for one additional unanimous consent request, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota, we return to the consideration of the bill and that Senator Dodd be immediately recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Minnesota concludes his remarks we then return to consideration of the bill.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Minnesota was kind enough to allow me to precede him, although he was recognized first so we could comment on Senator Byrd's comments. It would now be up to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has made reference to two actions we have taken in the Senate. I would like to comment briefly on both. First, on the second action we took, giving the President authority to respond to the attacks of September 11, the Senator did us a great service by laying out the version of that resolution with which we started and the version with which we ended. I made the same effort that day we voted on it, but I do not believe I actually put the drafts in the Record. I made reference to them, but I think that perhaps this is the first time the actual draft we began with is in the Congressional Record. I think that is a very important service. The resolution we adopted, as the Senator from West Virginia said, is much narrower in terms of its authority. The draft we began with, that the White House submitted to us, had unprecedented broad authority, far too broad for most of us. It was unlimited by time and by other limits, as to what the President could do in response to these attacks. The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11--not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11, and also, as the Senator from West Virginia said, made specific reference and inclusion by reference to the provisions of the War Powers Act. Those and other changes in the language of the resolution were significant. Our good friend from West Virginia pointed out that there was much greater care and caution--to use his words--in the final resolution we adopted. I hope history proves that those of us who worked so hard on that final resolution indeed used enough care and caution to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and just good common sense. But history will judge that one--and I hope will judge it well--because the differences between the original draft resolution submitted to us and the one we adopted are indeed significant changes, major changes. As a matter of fact, I want to give our staff some real credit because they worked through the night with us in order to craft those changes which we were then able to adopt unanimously in the Senate. On the first matter the Senator from West Virginia raised, which was the language which was in the original bill on national missile defense--as a member of the Armed Services Committee I know he is familiar with this history--let me recount it for those who are not members of the committee. As chairman of that committee, we asked the White House and the administration to tell us whether or not the activities for which they were requesting funding, the test activities for missile defense, were consistent with the ABM Treaty or would conflict with the ABM Treaty. We made many requests for that information, and we never received the answer to it. That is critically important information because if we, as the appropriators and authorizers, are going to put funds into a bill for testing activities which are in conflict with an arms control agreement and which could have huge ramifications in terms of our own security, in the view of many of us resulting in a unilateral withdrawal which could make us less secure rather than more secure--if we are going to take that action as a Congress to appropriate those funds, we should do so knowingly. We could not get that information. And so, as chairman of the committee, I drafted language which gave us an opportunity down the road, if and when the administration determined that the testing activities conflicted with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty--would give us the opportunity to vote whether or not we approved such expenditures. If we couldn't find out then, if we couldn't get that information to allow us to make that kind of an informed judgment, then I thought it was critically important to have that information so we could at a later point decide whether or not we would approve that expenditure. We won that argument by one vote in the Armed Services Committee. I was disappointed that all of our Republican colleagues voted against it. We were then informed that if that language remained in the bill, the bill would be vetoed by the President. So we started with that premise. That doesn't mean the language was not the right language. In my judgment, it was and is the right language. But what it means is that we knew the bill would be vetoed. Then came along the events of September 11, and the question was then whether or not that would make it possible for us to preserve that language in a totally different environment or whether or not it would make it more difficult to preserve language which I, as its author, thought was very significant, very important language. There are many Members of this body who have devoted large amounts of time to arms control issues, including the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, but I must say I have spent a good deal of time in my career working on these arms control issues, so this became a very significant issue to me. I believe this unilateral withdrawal from the arms control agreement will make us less secure and not more secure. If I thought unilateral withdrawal from this treaty would make us more secure, I would favor the unilateral withdrawal. I would give notice to withdraw if I believed it would make us more secure--because that is the issue. We are not here to defend a treaty; we are here to defend the country. In my judgment, the unilateral withdrawal from this treaty would result in such a negative reaction on the part of a number of countries that would respond to that withdrawal that overall, on balance, we would end up being less secure, and we would do so in order to commit ourselves to testing a system which is a defense against the least likely means of attack, a missile attack. We have been told by the Joint Chiefs over and over again that the least likely way we would be attacked, the least likely delivery system for a weapon of mass destruction, would be a missile. The most likely means would be a truck or a ship, some more conventional means--for a number of reasons, one of which being those conventional means--trucks, ships, whatever--are more accurate, cheaper, and--critically important--do not have what we call a return address like a missile. A missile attack would lead to the instantaneous destruction of any country that attacked us, including North Korea. And since the maintenance of their regime is their No. 1 goal in North Korea, according to our intelligence community, it is very unlikely that North Korea would attack us with a missile. It would lead to their instantaneous, or almost instantaneous, destruction. So I believe that to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty in order to put us closer to a defense against the least likely means of attack, and doing so unilaterally, which would produce a reaction on the part of a number of countries, including Russia and China, which would overall make us less secure since they would build up their forces faster, they would not dismantle their weapons as Russia is doing, they would put multiple warheads on missiles--called MIRVing--they would no longer participate in dismantling weapons, which means we would have more and more nuclear material on Russian soil subject to proliferation, subject to pilferage, it struck me and strikes me that unilateral withdrawal leaves us, overall, less secure. That is why I worked so hard on getting that language included. I thought, if Congress is going to provide the funds for that kind of activity that leads to the unilateral withdrawal from an arms control treaty, Congress should take the responsibility, under that oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to know what we are doing. That was the driving force behind the language I drafted. So that language comes in the bill that is now being considered on the floor giving Congress the opportunity to have a voice before funds it appropriates are used for that purpose. It gives us an opportunity to know that in fact the funds are going to be used for an activity which conflicts with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Then came the event of September 11. The argument which the opponents of my language made was that my language tied the hands of the Commander in Chief, because no longer could he move on his own without authority for appropriations; he would have to first come back to us for that authority. Frankly, I don't think that argument comes close to outweighing the arguments on the other side of this issue. Nonetheless, in that environment I reached the conclusion that that argument was going to prevail and it was not the time, immediately following the events of September 11, for that argument to be resolved. It was a very practical judgment on my part as its author that it was about the worst time we could possibly pick--not that it was the time of our choosing, but it would have been the worst time to have a debate which had such crucial importance. It struck me as being far preferable that we preserve our opportunity to present this issue later in a separate bill that went on the calendar and that the majority leader could then attempt to call up. That language is now part of a bill that is on the calendar which the majority leader can at a later point call up. Will it be more difficult for him to call it up than it would have been under the language had it remained embedded in the bill? The answer is yes, it will be more difficult because he will have to move to proceed if he cannot get the unanimous consent. But given the fact that the President was going to veto this bill and therefore this language was not going to end up in this bill in any event even if it survived the Senate, and there were those of us who had very strong feelings about the importance of avoiding a unilateral rift in a strategic relationship with Russia that has produced such stability, and for such little advantage, I made the judgment that it would be wise to preserve that argument by placing it in a separate bill that the majority leader at least could attempt to call up at a later date and which would be on the calendar. But what I saw otherwise was that this language was going to be removed by a vote of the Senate, and having an added disadvantage that we would be debating a security issue showing disunity at a time when we wanted to have unity. That was but one factor in my thinking, the other factor being that, as a matter of timing, this issue should be debated at a time when at least there would be a fairer opportunity and a setting separated from the events of September 11 where the argument that we were tying the hands of the Commander in Chief would have less of an emotional impact. I may have been right; I may have been wrong. But it was a judgment which I expressed to the body before the actions were taken. I indicated that prior to those actions being taken where we divided this language and put it into a separate bill, we should leave this debate to a later time. Those are key words which are sometimes forgotten. This debate has not gone away. It will not go away. I believe it is very unlikely that the President under these circumstances is going to withdraw unilaterally from this treaty. That is my own judgment. Surely the events of September 11 have made it so clear that collective action against terrorism and collective action for our security is essential and that unilateral action on our part is not going to make us secure, we need a lot of other countries to join with us if we are going to be secure. Acting unilaterally to withdraw from an arms control treaty in this setting it seems to me is highly unlikely. I know that the White House and the President say they are determined to get beyond the ABM Treaty, as they put it. But surely these events have shown that we need to act collectively in a civilized world against the uncivilized terror which has been perpetrated and inflicted upon us. I again thank my friend from West Virginia. I don't know of anybody in this body who more eloquently and more consistently describes the responsibilities of this body. I have outlined in the best way I can what I believe my responsibility is and what my responsibility was. My committee made a decision and the Senate made a decision after we described the language that was in this bill. I think we made the right decision. It allows those of us who believe strongly in the importance of avoiding a rift in a relationship and a unilateral withdrawal from an arms control treaty--it is consistent with our beliefs--to preserve this argument for a later date. As I said on the floor prior to the action we took, we should leave this debate for a later time; and, I must add, as I have tried to say a number of times since, at a time when I think we have a better chance of arguing the pros and cons of our position in an environment where we at least maximize our opportunity to prevail. That doesn't mean I am confident that we will. I hope we will prevail if and when that moment comes. At least I believe we have a greater opportunity when the debate takes place at a later time and in a different setting than we do in the short term. I thank my friend from Minnesota. I have taken more time than I told him I would take.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Minnesota. While Senator Byrd is on the floor, let me thank him for another of a long series of pleas that we be aware of our responsibility under the Constitution of this country, particularly when it comes to issues of war and peace. Surely the cautionary language of the great Senator from West Virginia is something which I hope all Members will heed. I, personally, treasure the copy of the Constitution which he has autographed for me. I have it on my desk, and I look at it constantly. It is not quite as close to my heart as the Constitution which the Senator from West Virginia carries with him at all times, but it is always a few feet away from me when I sit at my desk. I thank him for again pointing out to the Senate the responsibility we have in these particularly difficult days.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar No. 413, the nomination of Marianne Lamont Horinko to be Assistant Administrator at the EPA; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record, the President of the United States be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 2; further, that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill with 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, or their designees, prior to 10 a.m., whereupon a rollcall vote on cloture on the bill will occur; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The Senate will convene on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. with 30 minutes of closing debate prior to the 10 a.m. rollcall vote on cloture on the DOD authorization bill. All second-degree amendments to the DOD bill must be filed prior to 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from North Carolina will yield, we now have two ways of closing debate a little more promptly and in unique ways. One is with Ted Kennedy's dog, which barks when someone goes on too long--usually not on the floor of the Senate--and now we have a music box. So that Chris and Jackie have the special gift from the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask consent it be in order to send 16 amendments to the desk, and I ask they be considered en bloc. I understand these amendments have been cleared by the other side.

Mr. LEVIN. Talk about a seamless transition, as the Senator from Connecticut said, this is a seamless transition of the Presiding Officers.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since we were unable to reach agreement on a list of finite amendments to the Defense Authorization Act last week, the leadership filed a cloture motion on the bill. The Senate will vote on cloture on the bill at 10 a.m. tomorrow. I certainly hope the Senate will invoke cloture on the bill because we have so many important items in this bill relating to our national security. It is essential that we act in the Senate so we can go to conference with the House and bring back a conference product. So far we have adopted 47 amendments to the bill. We have had two rollcall votes. And one amendment has been offered and then withdrawn. Over the last few days of last week, and over the weekend, we and our staffs have worked through more of the amendments that have been filed on the bill. Senator Warner and I have another package of cleared amendments that we will be offering later today in the form of a managers' package. We are continuing to work to clear amendments, and we expect to have more cleared later this afternoon. I encourage Senators who have amendments to bring them down and to work with our staffs to try to get them cleared. Completing action on this bill tomorrow would send a powerful signal to our allies and our adversaries around the world of our sense of national unity and determination and of our strong support for our Armed Forces. Failure to complete action on this bill would send the opposite message. So I urge all of our colleagues to put aside controversial issues that do not relate to this bill and to work with Senator Warner and with me to complete action on this important legislation. The ranking minority member of the committee, Senator Warner, is at the White House with the President this afternoon. We were scheduled to begin at 2 o'clock, but that meeting with the President obviously takes precedence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I join with the Senator from North Carolina in paying tribute to Hugh Shelton. I have also had the opportunity to work with him, and I am a great admirer and fan of his. I also must join my good friend from Virginia in saying that his appearances--and there were many before our committee--would be the highlight of our committee's activities. His briefings were always to the point and delivered with extraordinary modesty for somebody who had a right to really deliver them with claims of experience, but he never used that. He just used common sense, calm, and wisdom. His authority came from inside, not kind of an outward claim to boast. He was an extraordinary human being, and I just want to thank the Senator from North Carolina for his remarks. I join with him. I always remember that air campaign in Kosovo, of which he really was a leader. I think it was a magnificent success in good measure because of that leadership.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield so I may add my compliments to the Senator from North Carolina for his remarks?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. We not only want to thank our good friend from Virginia for those thoughts about the religious holiday--which I am now going to leave here to celebrate--but I want to thank him for the sensitivity which he has shown to that issue and to every other issue that involves personal lives. He has consistently done that for 23 years. It is part of his makeup. He has very much worried whether I would be able to leave here in time today to get to synagogue. I very much appreciate his consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we made good progress on this bill yesterday. Unfortunately, we weren't successful in reaching a unanimous consent agreement on a finite list of amendments to this bill which would allow us to move quickly to final passage. But we simply must complete action on this bill. President Bush has declared a national state of emergency. Our military forces are deploying around the world. We are calling the National Guard and Reserve units to active duty to augment our active forces. This bill contains critically important provisions for our national security. It provides much needed increases in military pay and benefits, including housing benefits and allowances. It contains authority for bonuses and special pay to retain people with critical skills in the military services, and it contains a number of important provisions to improve the efficiency of the Defense Department operations. The matter which has been keeping us from proceeding and completing this bill is not related to the national defense bill that is before us. Our leadership is working hard to try to address that issue. I thank our leaders, Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, and Senator Reid, who have been so actively involved for their efforts to move us forward on this critically important bill. I thank Senator Warner. He and his staff have worked tirelessly to advance the bill. But adopting this bill would send a powerful signal to our allies and our adversaries around the world of a strong and unified sense of national unity and determination and our support for our Armed Forces. So I am hopeful that we can continue to make progress. As part of that effort, Senator Warner and I and our staffs worked late last night and this morning to develop a package of about 25 cleared amendments. Amendments Nos. 1694 through 1718, En Bloc At this point, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to send 25 amendments to the desk for consideration en bloc, that the amendments be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the amendments be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Neither of us shows it in terms of the youthful visage we present.

Mr. LEVIN. Talking about optimism, as I mentioned to my friend from Virginia, I have been optimistic since last night that we were going to be able to work out the issue which temporarily held us up yesterday. That one now seems very resolvable. There is one big problem relative to a matter that is not related to this bill. That is the only problem that I see in the way. But our leaders will have more to say about that in a few minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this month people in my home state of Michigan gathered to celebrate the 150th birthday of the Academy of the Sacred Heart an institution that, even though it was founded for the ``sake of one child,'' has been providing excellence in education to countless individuals. This celebration culminated on Sunday, September 16, 2001, when His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop of Detroit conducted a celebratory liturgy for this the oldest independent school in the State of Michigan. This year marks the third centenary anniversary of Detroit, MI. In that time, many changes have dramatically altered the city as it evolved from a small trading outpost into an international center of commerce and industry. Through all these changes, one thing has remained constant for the past century and a half: the Society of the Sacred Heart's commitment to educating the youth of metro Detroit. During this time, the Academy of the Sacred Heart has been an institution dedicated to the education of mind, body and spirit. This focus on educating the whole person has enabled the Academy to develop students that embody the hallmarks of a Catholic education: intellectual rigor combined with service to God and others. The Academy began in 1821 when the co-founder of the University of Michigan, Father Gabriel Richard asked the Society of the Sacred Heart to establish a foundation in Detroit. In 1849, the Society was given the land necessary to establish a school, and the doors to the first school opened on Jefferson Avenue, between St. Antoine and Beaubien Streets, in 1861. In its first 20 years, this institution--dedicated to the pursuit of ``faith seeking understanding'' and the service of others--underwent a tenfold increase in enrollment. Detroit's economic growth paralleled the school's increasing enrollment, and the school found itself surrounded by factories and warehouses. The changing demographic led the school to sell its building, in 1918, to the Packard Motor Co. The school relocated to the corner of Lawrence and Woodrow Wilson Avenues. Further development and the establishment of the Lodge Freeway separated this new facility from the neighborhoods it served and enrollment dropped. This led the school to seek yet another new campus. The third incarnation of the Academy of the Sacred Heart led it to its present location in Bloomfield Hills, MI. Today, the Academy continues to build on its tradition of faith and dedication to service. Attendance has blossomed at the school with nearly 500 students, of many faiths and cultural backgrounds, from all across the Detroit area. In addition to receiving quality academic instruction, students at the Academy learn by performing community service through various organizations in Detroit. The entire Academy of the Sacred Heart community--the Society of the Sacred Heart, the faculty, alumni and current students--can take pride in the school's long and honorable service to the people of Michigan. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in saluting the Academy of the Sacred Heart for a century and a half of achievement and in wishing them well on the next century and a half of continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today family and friends gathered outside Detroit to pay their final respects to Federal Protective Services Officer Ronald C. Sheffield and to remember a life of sacrifice and service to others. Last Friday, September 21, 2001, Officer Sheffield was shot and killed while on duty at the McNamara Federal Building in downtown Detroit. My largest State office is in the McNamara Building and many members of my staff were in the building when the shooting occurred. His loss will be felt by the entire McNamara Building family but most deeply by those closest to him, particularly his daughters Jessica Lynn and Jinelle Marie. Officer Sheffield spent his career protecting Americans and defending our great country. He was a sergeant in the Marines during combat operations in the Persian Gulf War and a police officer with the Veterans Administration before joining the GSA. The past 2 weeks have made all Americans even more aware of the dedication and bravery of the thousands of law enforcement officers, firefighters, military and emergency personnel who risk their lives every day to protect us. Officer Sheffield now joins the ranks of those American heros who have made the ultimate sacrifice. My thoughts and prayers are with Officer Sheffield's family, friends and fellow officers who are grieving. And my sincere thanks and admiration go out to law enforcement officers, firefighters, military and emergency personnel across the country.