Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this side. I think there is broad support for this amendment. What it would do is to permit people who are overseas in contingencies to file late income tax returns. I think that is the only fair way to do it. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am proud to cosponsor this.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I want to commend the Senator from Minnesota for his tenacity in this and I congratulate him for the effort.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves, let me commend him for his remarks. I have many of the same concerns that he has expressed. I have tried to figure out the best way to address those concerns. I did not see support for addressing those concerns on the Senate floor, frankly, and, therefore have not attempted to address some of the ones that he mentioned. I hope they can be addressed in conference. I will be speaking to that later on this afternoon and tomorrow, because, in fact, budget points of order lie to many of the matters which have been raised by the Senator from Oklahoma. Yet, we don't have the Budget Committee here raising those points of order that lie. We will be again exploring that in some depth later on this afternoon, and indicating that if this comes back from conference with the same unpaid-for benefits, then points of order would still lie. I hope if it happens that the Budget Committee folks would see fit to raise points of order to lie under the Budget Act against the benefits that are not paid for; and that, if not, I will surely consider raising a point of order. What the Senator from Oklahoma said--I think I might be joining in that kind of an effort. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Dorgan, I ask unanimous consent that Anthony Blaylock, a defense fellow serving in his office, be given floor privileges during the debate on S. 4.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair for the responses to those inquiries. The fact that this bill violates the Budget Act in so many different ways helps to demonstrate the stark fact that there could be serious consequences from taking up this bill as we have, outside of the normal legislative cycle. Now, Mr. President, I share the desire of, I hope, all of our colleagues to do what we can to provide fairer compensation to our men and women in uniform, and to address the serious recruiting and retention problems which are faced by the services. However, if the House acts on this measure and it is brought back to the Senate floor following a conference without paying for the benefits in this bill, many of the same points of order under the Budget Act would still apply. And so, if the Budget Committee members at that point fail to raise points of order which would be available to such a conference report if it comes back to the floor without being paid for, I would reserve the right at that time to raise those points of order. I think it is very important that before this bill comes back to either House in the form of a conference report, that any benefits in this bill be paid for. No matter how much we want to enact these important provisions into law, at some point we are going to have to pay for them. That time needs to come before final passage of any conference report on this bill. So I want to alert my good friend from Virginia that although the points of order were not raised here--the Budget Committee members determined, apparently, not to raise such points of order even though the Budget Act is, in the first instance at least, theirs to enforce--any of us can enforce it. Any member of the Budget Committee, I would think, would have a special responsibility to make sure that we comply with the Budget Act. Each one of us has our own reasons for not raising a point of order. Each one of us could do so at this time. I am willing to vote to permit this bill to take its next step without raising a point of order. However, if this bill is passed by the House, goes to conference, and comes back with benefits not being paid for, it would then be my intention at that time to consider raising points of order, and hopefully the Budget Committee would consider whether or not, in fact, the Budget Act maintenance doesn't require such points of order to be made before this bill actually is sent to the President. I thank the Chair for his rulings and for his cooperation in response to my question. Again, I thank my good friend from Virginia for all of his effort on this bill. Even though we do have some problems with having a bill with such a large amount of money in it that is not paid for, nonetheless, I, as one Senator and ranking member, am willing to have it proceed to the House with the caveat I have just shared with my colleagues.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me commend our friend from Georgia for this amendment. He has made a number of major contributions already to this bill, most particularly in the transferability provision of the education benefits under the GI bill. That is a huge gain for our men and women in the military and for this Nation. Again, as I pointed out earlier, I thank him for the initiative that he took to have that provision added in committee. The amendment he is offering this afternoon is an important amendment. It will extend the authority for 3 years to pay bonuses and special pay which are so critical to both recruiting and retention of our military members, and we strongly support this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Wyoming for his amendment. It is a very good amendment. It equalizes the Army and the Air Force with what already exists for the Navy and the Marines. The reason we should equalize it is because when our Army and Air Force personnel are deployed, they are effectively in the same situation and need this tuition assistance to the same extent that the Navy and the Marines already have it authorized. As Senator Allard said, it is discretionary with our service secretaries. That means that it hopefully will be accomplished and hopefully can be done within their budgets but does not raise a Budget Act problem. I commend our friend from Wyoming, and we support the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 11 (Purpose: To make a limitation on tuition assistance for members of the Armed Forces inapplicable to members deployed in support of a contingency operation or similar operation)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to alert our colleagues to a fact which was not clear the last time we spoke on the subject of this amendment which we just adopted. There was not certainty as to whether that amendment would have been subject to a point of order had a point of order been made. We protected that possibility in our unanimous consent agreement in the event the Parliamentarian ruled that it would have been subject to a point of order. In fact, we now understand that it would have been subject to a point of order, and therefore we have now another provision in the bill that is in violation of the Budget Act because it is not paid for. That is something which we should really be very conscious of as we go along here and very concerned about. But we did protect our colleagues in the event that that was the ruling, and none of our colleagues decided to raise the point of order. But in fact it could have been raised. And we should take very serious note of any of the violations of the Budget Act as we proceed, because at some point we are going to have to pay for the amendments we add as well as the bill itself. I thank the Chair. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would want to clarify it. That would then be the sequence of the remarks?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment the chairman will be propounding a unanimous consent request which I will support. I do want to have one caveat on it, however, and that is that the Governmental Affairs members, as far as I know, have not had an opportunity to review this. This is within their jurisdiction; it affects civil service, and I think we should alert--I am hereby alerting them that there would be a vote on this matter at 2:15--and I think that in the event that a member of that committee, or anyone else for that reason, that it is within the jurisdiction of another committee, wanted to speak on this amendment before it were adopted, I would support a request from such a member to have an opportunity to speak for a brief amount of time prior to the vote. It would require a change in the unanimous consent agreement, and I am going to support this unanimous consent agreement so we can sequence some votes at 2:15, but I do want to alert our colleagues particularly on the Governmental Affairs Committee that this is an amendment within their jurisdiction, and if any member of that committee or any other member wants to speak to it for that reason, that this is not in the jurisdiction of Armed Services but a different committee, I would support--that doesn't mean it will succeed, but I will support a modification in our unanimous consent agreement at 2:15 to permit a short period of time for such amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia for that response. I wonder if the Senator from Idaho has discussed with the persons who were involved actively in placing that administrative cap in the--relative to the issue of removing that cap, have there been any discussions and, if so, could he share those perhaps with the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Virginia will address this issue as well. We have an administrative cap on staff salaries here in the Senate, and this amendment does not address that administrative cap. So we would be correcting one problem. I happen to support the thrust of that, which is that we would not be putting our active duty retirees at a disadvantage compared to our Reserve retirees. But we are also creating, in a sense, another inequality because the executive branch now would have no restriction administratively, whereas we apparently will retain this administrative cap. So I am concerned about that inequity that would be created between ourselves and the executive branch with the passage of this, and I simply want to point it out. I think the direction here is the right one. But I do think we are facing another inequity. We are creating, in effect, another equity by eliminating the executive branch statutory cap and eliminating our statutory cap, leaving in place the administrative cap that is already in there.

Mr. LEVIN. I generally support the thrust of the Senator's amendment. But I also want to make sure that it accomplishes its goal in the Congress too. One of the issues which has been raised is whether or not the amendment addresses the administrative cap that exists on salaries here in the Senate, and I understand there is a similar administrative cap that exists in the House as well. That is one of the issues as to whether or not changing the law here will, in effect, accomplish the purpose or then just create another inconsistency between Congress and the executive branch. So that is one issue which perhaps the Senator can address. The other issue is just the concern that I have as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee which is that we should give that committee an opportunity to take a look at this amendment, because there is a civil service aspect to this which they may have some feelings about and we were trying to see whether or not there is any desire on the part of either the chairman, ranking member of Governmental Affairs, or anyone else on that committee to speak on this amendment. We have been unable to ascertain that. But taking the first question first, I am wondering whether or not the Senator would comment on the question whether or not his amendment would address the current administrative cap that exists on staff salaries here in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 9

Mr. LEVIN. We can just add it. Perhaps, while we are waiting for that, I can ask our friend from Idaho a question.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it needs to be redrawn further in order to protect the point of order and motion to debate.

Mr. LEVIN. It has to be further amended, because we want to make sure that in the event there is a point of order--we don't know whether there will be one or not--but in the event there is a point of order, that a motion to waive that point of order would be debatable. I don't know that there will. But the Budget Committee folks are now apparently in a hearing. We can't get an answer from them as to whether or not there is an interest in making a point of order, assuming one lies. And I am not sure we even know yet whether or not a point of order lies. But we want to protect the rights of those Members. So in order to do that, we have to protect the rights of anyone to make a point of order and to debate a motion to waive that point of order. That is being written.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if my good friend from Virginia will yield on this unanimous consent proposal which he is about to propound, I understand it is going to be revised.

Mr. LEVIN. First, relative to the amendment of the Senators from Texas and North Carolina, we understand that both of them have joined together in that amendment. We are very supportive of that effort. We think it is an important effort. Health care for themselves and mainly for their families is the number one concern of our uniformed military. This amendment would be very, very helpful. I want to commend both Senator Hutchison and Senator Edwards for this amendment. I look forward to accepting this amendment. More important, I think the uniformed military and their families look forward to this improvement. I commend both of them. After Senator Edwards is recognized next, when we then go back to the amendment of the Senator from Idaho, I will have a question to ask of him. I yield the floor at this time. Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I haven't seen that yet. If you will withhold on that. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, the Senator from Illinois did indicate to me he had completed. Thank you for your concern.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as we close this chapter in the Senate's life and prepare our records for the annals of history, there are several points which I wish to highlight in a series of appendices. I ask unanimous consent that the appendices be printed in the Record.