Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield an additional 30 seconds?

Mr. LEVIN. On the pending amendment, again I think this is a well- intended amendment. I think up until the last paragraph it is on target. We do want the Secretary of the Navy to determine the results of operational test and evaluation and to certify that the version of the aircraft to be procured under the multiyear satisfies all key performance parameters. I think that is very good. The problem is it then gives to the Comptroller General, who is in the legislative branch, the veto power because the Comptroller General must concur with the Secretary's----

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield 1 more minute?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against both of these amendments, although they are well intended. The first amendment has the problem that it would not accommodate changes in specifications in order to allow new technologies to be inserted which cost more than the specified technology in the cost cap. That may be a lot of verbiage, but it is important. I have been very active in cost caps. I proposed a cost cap, for instance, for the new CVN-77. I supported the cost cap that we previously wrote in to the F- 22, and supported it very strongly. But, in both of those instances, the cost caps allowed for the new technology possibility. If new technologies come along which are not in the specifications, we should want them to be considered. We should not make it difficult or impossible for new technologies to be considered. We should want them, if that would make the plane more effective, providing the Secretary certifies to us--or notifies us, more accurately--that there is a change. That is not a loophole. That is something which is desirable, it seems to me. I emphasize the cost cap--for instance in the CVN-77, which I wrote--contained the exception that if there is a new technology which the Secretary of the Navy certifies to us is desirable, that then would be an exception to the cost cap. On the current amendment----

Mr. LEVIN. Does this include any time between the votes? Could there be 2 minutes between the votes on the first and second and second and third amendments--2 minutes equally divided?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. So we can sequence Senator Lautenberg's 5 minutes for an earlier amendment in this process, after the Senator from Missouri is finished his time and the Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized, the Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. LEVIN. It is desired.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the time now is being controlled by Senator Bingaman. I ask him for 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Reed be recognized to talk about the bill for 10 minutes and that then the quorum call be reinstated.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Object.

Mr. LEVIN. We are sequencing speeches.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding now from my staff--staffs have been working on this and are still working on it. I ask that the Senator withhold that until we can see whether or not that can be worked out, because my staff indicates that they were actually in the process of discussion, and we are not sure what version it is that the Senator is offering. So I would not be able to agree to a change in our order unless we take a few minutes here to see if we can first work it out. Then I would assure the Senator that if it is not worked out--I know our good friend from Virginia would assure you as well--there would be an opportunity to offer the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Pursuant to the prior unanimous consent agreement, I now call up the following amendments at the desk: The Kerrey amendment, No. 376; the two Sarbanes amendments, Nos. 386 and 387; two Harkin amendments, Nos. 398 and 399; and one Boxer amendment, No. 403.

Mr. LEVIN. Is that modification agreeable?

Mr. LEVIN. Could the Senator identify which amendment that is?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand the three votes will not only be stacked at the end of the debate on the third amendment but that we would vote on them in the order in which they are presented; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Can we get the yeas and nays on the Kennedy amendment now? Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Massachusetts has requested, and I surely have no objection, that the remainder of his time be saved and reserved until some point either during or after the conclusion of the Feingold amendments. If that is agreeable with the Senator from Wisconsin, I think that would accommodate Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that point? My friend from Virginia is attempting, if the Senator from Virginia is able to do this, to see if we cannot have the votes begin at a slightly later time than would previously be indicated by the way in which the three amendments are stacked. Since the Senator from Virginia is the manager, if he is willing, we could give that preliminary alert.

Mr. LEVIN. That would be very accommodating.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do the opponents have?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask that they yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.