Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my staff just handed me some interesting statistics, since we have a moment. Over the last 10 years, we have averaged 5\1/2\ days on the Defense authorization bill and 116 amendments, on average. We are actually doing pretty well. We are making some progress. We may beat the average even. We never know.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the request for our colleagues to contact the cloakrooms about their intentions relative to amendments and speaking on the bill. It will help us to organize the rest of the time we will need on the bill. I particularly thank Senator Reid. He has been working hard on our side. I know that kind of effort is being made also on the Republican side to see if we cannot come up with a finite list at the end of the day of amendments that Members intend to offer.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not-- we agreed that Senator Kennedy would have an amendment or amendments sequenced at a later time.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection. I think it is important everyone understand.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, so we are all very clear, because there has been some discussion as to the differences between the two amendments, if this modification is made, the length of time that the Warner provision would be in effect, then, would be the years 2002 and 2003 instead of 2002, 2003, and 2004. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. While we are on the subject, there is now apparently some indication that there may still be a point of order problem with the Warner amendment which we are trying to assert.

Mr. LEVIN. I assure my friend from Arkansas, when I inquired yesterday about whether or not the amendment of the Senator from Virginia was subject to a point of order, that was the only amendment that was at the desk to which I could make such an inquiry to which the Parliamentarian could respond. Now that the Johnson amendment is there, I ask the same question: Is the Johnson amendment subject to a point of order?

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. LEVIN. I believe the Senator indicated before that TRICARE was available to all retirees under both proposals, that this would be one difference in that regard, and that under your proposal, Part B would not have to be paid for by the retiree; whereas, under the proposal of the Senator from Virginia, it would have to be. I am not arguing the merits or demerits, but factually that is a difference; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Whereas, under the Johnson proposal, Part B would not have to be paid for by retirees in order to have TRICARE provided to them.

Mr. LEVIN. This is to clarify the differences between the approaches. I understand there is another difference between the two, which is that TRICARE would be available to all over 65 under both proposals, but under the proposal of the Senator from Virginia, TRICARE would only be available for those who pay Part B.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. I must say, I am utterly amazed by the last answer of my good friend from Virginia. What the Senator from Virginia said is that President Bush carefully, after thorough deliberation and consideration, negotiated a START II treaty. That was done, to use my good friend's words: After the studies were done, after the work was done. I am wondering if my friend from Nebraska would agree with what I am now going to say. The law that is on the books will not let us go down to the Bush START II level, which was so carefully negotiated. Think about what our law is. We just heard--and I agree with the good Senator from Virginia--that President Bush carefully, thoughtfully, in the words of the Senator from Virginia, after the studies were done and the work was done, negotiated a START II treaty. I agree with that. The law on the books will not let us go to the level that President Bush negotiated. We have to stay at START I levels.

Mr. LEVIN. You cannot have it both ways. If President Bush thoughtfully--and he did--carefully--and he did--after work was done-- and it was--negotiated a START II level--we have ratified START II--the Joint Chiefs want us to go to that level and have testified to that, that we are wasting money staying at the START I level--we have peacekeepers that we can't afford to maintain; it is wasteful--they say, please don't force us to keep to that level, but we have a law on the books which says we have to stay at the START I level of 6,000 warheads. We cannot go down to the START II level of 3,000 to 3,500 warheads because of the law on the books. You can't have this both ways. To add insult to injury, now we are saying that the only way that can be waived, that limit, that START I requirement that we have on the books, is if there is another Nuclear Posture Review. We have had two very thoughtful, Nuclear Posture Reviews, one in 1994, one in 1997. You will not let us implement it. This law will not let us implement the previous careful, thoughtful Nuclear Posture Reviews. I do not have any problem with another one, by the way. I do not have any problem with the bill the way it now reads. The problem I have is with the Warner amendment, which says that we can't do what we negotiated in START II, even though it has been confirmed by two thoughtful posture statements, unless the President-- the next President, not this one--first has another Nuclear Posture Review. That is the problem. I think the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Virginia is aimed very clearly at this President. I think it is a mistake in terms of its approach. It is being limited to hobble this President, to force him to maintain a force structure which was negotiated to a lower level by a previous President. I think that is a mistake in terms of precedent and in terms of what we should be doing in terms of a body. It should not be aimed at one President. But in addition to that, I must say that we are maintaining a force structure which the Joint Chiefs say we do not need, a force structure which START II--which was negotiated by President Bush--says we do not need. So we are wasting a lot of money as well as engaging, I believe, in a partisan effort to hobble the President. That is the sad news. That is one of the problems with the Warner amendment. But there is some good news--not in this amendment, but there is some good news that should give us a little bit of comfort. It will not work. We can waste money. We are. We can maintain a dangerous level of force structure, for the reasons which the Senator from Nebraska gave, making us less secure, not more. We can do all that. But we cannot hobble the President, although I believe the intent of this amendment is to hobble this President. I believe that is the intent because it is only aimed at this President. The next President--whether it is a Democratic or Republican President--we have been told last night, can go through this review in a matter of months, if they want to, and then waive this statute, but not this President. So I think it is aimed at this President. But this President has the constitutional right to negotiate a treaty, should he see fit. Thank God, the Constitution is there again to save us. Because although this language will not allow a waiver by this President to get down to the level which President Bush negotiated, and which the Joint Chiefs of Staff say is all we need to keep us secure-- half of the level which the current law forces us to maintain--even though that is what this language will force us to do, it cannot stop the President from carrying out his constitutional duty to his last day in office. He can negotiate a treaty at a lower level. If he does so, we can reject it. The Senate has to ratify under the Constitution. But the President is nonetheless able to negotiate reductions below the START II level, as the Joint Chiefs have said he safely can. In 1997, the Joint Chiefs said we can safely go down to 2,000, 2,500, which is about 1,000 below the START II level. They have already said that after a careful posture review. I hope the President succeeds in coming up with a treaty which allows us to deploy a limited national missile defense at a lower level of nuclear weapons. I hope he succeeds. But I must say this amendment is not constructive. It is not something which I believe would be offered were a President of a different party in office. I do not believe that it would be offered. I think the answers last night give support to that conclusion. It is a very sad conclusion on my part to reach that because I know my friend from Virginia is not ordinarily of that bent. We have worked together long enough so I know what his instincts usually are. But in this case, I am afraid it falls short of where we should be as a body, which should be supporting our right to ratify, supporting a force structure we need, but not maintaining a force structure we no longer need according to two careful posture reviews, for purposes which I believe are intended to restrict this President. Before I yield the floor, I ask the Senator from Nebraska, is it not accurate that the START II level which was negotiated by President Bush was supported by a Nuclear Posture Review made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement of General Shelton be printed in the Record at this time, indicating that major costs would be incurred if we remain at START I levels, stating his opposition to the language which the Senator from Virginia would maintain in our law without the possibility of a waiver until next year.

Mr. LEVIN. That posture review supported the START II levels. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff support the START I levels. They want to be able to go to the START II levels. It has nothing to do with the ratification by the Duma. It has to do with what we no longer need in our force structure, which the law requires them to maintain, and costs dollars that could be better used elsewhere, including for perhaps health care.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am a co-sponsor of the Kerrey amendment and urge the Senate to adopt this important amendment. Current law prohibits the U.S. from reducing its strategic nuclear delivery systems below START I levels. This law requires the U.S. to stay at START I levels--to maintain 6000 nuclear warheads, until START II enters into force. This law was enacted, in 1996, just 16 months after the START II treaty was signed. The amendment offered by Senator Kerrey will repeal this law which is neither needed or helpful. The START II treaty allows the U.S. to reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 3000-3500, but the law requires that we maintain 6000 warheads. We do not need 6000 thousand warheads and we do not need this law. The Department of Defense has consistently argued that the law is not necessary. When asked his view about this provision, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, was clear: ``I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that mandates specific force structure levels.'' General Shelton made it clear that the Chiefs also oppose this provision: ``The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to consider options that will reduce the strategic forces to the levels recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. The START I legislative restraint will need to be removed before we can pursue these options. Major costs will be incurred if we remain at START I levels.'' We have already spent millions staying at the START I, 6000 warhead level. For instance, we are unnecessarily spending to maintain the 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs. The Nuclear Posture Review, conducted in 1994, reaffirmed that the U.S. did not need 6000 warheads and that the START I level of 3000-3500 warheads was adequate. General Shalikashvili stated, in 1995, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee that ``Our analysis shows that even under the worst conditions the START II force levels (3000- 3500 warheads) provide enough survivable forces, and survivable, sustained command and control to accomplish our targeting objectives.'' It is ironic that Governor Bush criticizes the Clinton administration for ``remain(ing) in a Cold War mentality'' and for failing ``to bring the U.S. force structure into the post-Cold War world'' when it is this law, put in place by Congress, that requires staying in the Cold War mentality. If this law is not repealed now, it will tie the hands of the next President, the next Secretary of Defense, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Warner second degree amendment would require the U.S. to stay at the START I 6000 warhead level for at least another 18 months. Even though there is general agreement that we need to go below the START I level of 6000 warheads, the Warner amendment would keep the U.S. at this high warhead level, even though the 3000-3500 START II level has been reviewed and validated repeatedly and continually since 1992 when the START II Treaty was signed. In 1994 the DOD conducted a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review that validated the START II force structure levels--3000-3500 warheads. The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review carefully reviewed and affirmed that the START II nuclear force structure was appropriate to protect U.S. national security requirements. In 1997, in preparation for discussions in Helsinki between the United States and Russia, the DOD and the Joint Chiefs again reviewed nuclear force structure levels and determined that an even lower force structure level at the proposed START III level of 2000-2500 warheads was adequate. Just last month, in extensive testimony before the Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of the Strategic Command testified that the 2000-2500 warhead level proposed for START III level was adequate to meet U.S. military requirements. Only Congress is still stuck at a START I force structure levels. In light of the nuclear force structure reviews that have been conducted since START II was signed, it is clear that force structure levels will be at or below START II levels of 3000-3500 warheads. Why do we have to wait another 18 months to go below the START I force structure level--a level that no one seriously argues should be maintained? Mr. President, the Kerrey amendment is a simple amendment to repeal a law whose time and usefulness has past. I urge its adoption.

Mr. LEVIN. What is the time agreement on the upcoming two amendments?

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield just for----

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for one quick comment?

Mr. LEVIN. The provision in the bill that provides the prescription drug benefit for retirees was a bipartisan effort in our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator said it came from a certain side of the aisle. It was not in the President's budget, but it was a bipartisan effort in committee which I now believe the President supports.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I make a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not amendment No. 3173, which is the pending amendment, is subject to a point of order and, if so, what point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. That procedure would be fine. I welcome hearing from our good friends, including our former chairman, and then perhaps we will lay this aside so we can try to make it in compliance, if possible, with the Budget Act. I welcome the comments of the chairman.