Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment before us goes beyond the amendment which we considered yesterday. Yesterday, there was a debate on an amendment of Senator Brownback which related to the question of barracks. The amendment before us today revisits that issue, and I will come to that in a moment. It goes beyond that to require segregated training for our recruits. This is not a pure revisit of yesterday's amendment that was offered by the Senator from Kansas. We are now talking about both the barracks issue and the requirement in the Byrd amendment for segregated training. Now, our top uniformed officials have written us strongly opposing this amendment. In a moment I am going to read from the letter of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Reimer, who wrote to Strom Thurmond, our great chairman, on May 19, about this issue. But before I quote from his letter, I want to emphasize that what we are being told here is not a matter of political correctness; this is a question of a commander's responsibilities that General Reimer is talking to us about. And this is what General Reimer wrote: The company commanders of the training companies are responsible for everything their units do or fail to do. Segregating their units-- Segregating their units-- into gender-unique platoons for training and billeting the soldiers by gender in separate buildings will degrade the commander's ability to command and control his or her unit. We do not want to make the commander's responsibilities more difficult or the drill sergeant's duties more challenging than they already are. This is part of a letter from General Reimer. Now, the top enlisted members of each of the services, each of the services--and these are the senior advisers relative to the welfare of enlisted members--have written us on June 17 saying the following: Each time our Nation has asked the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines to do a job, it has been done. Men and women soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines accomplish the tasks asked of them every day in places like Bosnia, Haiti, southwest Asia, and the Far East. Their many successes in our gender-integrated, all-volunteer force is a direct result of the training the services currently provide. A direct result of the training that these recruits get--and that training is gender-integrated training. This amendment would end that--not only end it against the recommendation of our top uniformed officials and officers; it would end it prematurely and precipitously. Last year, we appointed a commission, the Congress appointed a commission. We picked 10 people on this commission to review the recommendations of the Kassebaum commission. That was our choice, and those citizens are now serving. They are serving at our request, reviewing the very recommendations that this amendment would put into law before that review can take place. I want to read from that part of last year's defense authorization bill. It says that the commission--again I emphasize, the commission that we created, we put into place, we appointed--this commission shall: Consider issues regarding the personal relationships of members of the Armed Forces as follows: And No. 3 is: To assess the reports of the independent panel, the Department of Defense task force, and the review of existing guidance on fraternization that has been required by the Secretary of Defense. Just last year we created a commission, and one of its explicit duties is to review the Kassebaum commission's recommendations. A number of those recommendations are not acceptable to the uniformed military, including the ones relative to training.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in addition to the five speakers noted, I would add a request on that unanimous consent that Senator Robb of Virginia be granted 3 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senators who were involved in working this out, the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum because I note the absence of Senator Feingold.

Mr. LEVIN. Relative to Kashmir.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object--a lot of hard work has gone into this. I would only ask a very slight modification there, which is that Senator Daschle be added as a cosponsor of the Warner-Levin-Lott amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I make inquiry of the Senator from Virginia. He and I have discussed this question. It is my understanding that the authorization here is discretionary. No. 1, that the words ``may be available'' are now in instead of ``shall''. No. 2, not only is it discretionary so that if the Secretary chooses to do the design, then something also will be forthcoming. It is my understanding that this amendment is not only discretionary, but does not commit us to the construction of this project. I want to ask the Senator from Virginia is my understanding correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I will use the balance of the time of the Senator from Indiana, and then the Senator from Arkansas can finish.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry just to clarify the situation. As I understand the situation, the Senator from North Carolina is going to then proceed with his amendment now, ahead of the colloquy of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Kentucky. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Kentucky has made a strong case. I agree with him. Complex tax proposals of this type which preempt State tax laws do not belong in a defense bill. I will make sure that his concerns are considered by the conference committee when we address the differences between the House and the Senate versions of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN. That time has been reserved to the Senators from Tennessee and Kentucky?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3014 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, $8,300,000 for the construction of the National Guard Military Educational Facility at Fort Bragg, North Carolina)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, they have been cleared on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. To clarify the Record, the unanimous consent agreement did provide for time on the Feingold amendment, and that time was used with debate.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to see if there is an objection to that because----

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, the unanimous consent request was that the colloquy of the Senator from Tennessee be entered into the Record at this time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, the Senator from Arkansas has again identified a significant problem in terms of our defense procurement. We were very much concerned with this problem in the Armed Services Committee in the manner which the Senator from Indiana described. The difficulty that we face is that there is going to be some risks either way. If there is a delay here, as the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas would require, there would be a 14-month gap, approximately, before the advanced procurement funds could be obligated. And that gap in this production line will be costly to the extent perhaps of $2.75 billion. Now, on the other hand, in the testing which we need to displace some significant problems with the F-22, we are going to also have some significant costs. So either way, we have to face some risks--either way--whether we do it the committee way or whether we do it the way of the Senator from Arkansas. We felt on the committee it was better to do it our way, to let the Secretary of Defense, if he must waive some of those testing hours before the obligation of the advanced procurement money require that he certify that the financial risks that are there either way would be greater from his not certifying than from his certifying. So we are trying to reduce the risks through this process, the financial risks that are going to exist either way. But in supporting the committee position, and in opposing the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, I again commend him for taking the time to get inside one of these issues. He is one of the few Senators who is willing to get inside one of these complicated defense procurement issues and point out the complexities, and in this case what he considers to be the error of a particular procurement process in which we are engaged. And so while I disagree with him, again, I commend him and thank him for the time he has taken on this issue. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I thought the Senator from Arkansas might want to conclude, so I would use the remainder of the 3 minutes of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask the Senator from Maryland be yielded 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that since the Senator from Maryland wants to speak for the amendment for a few minutes--

Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Washington need additional time?

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute, if I may.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from Washington for her persistence, her constancy, and the way in which she has gone about trying to make sure that the families of veterans, in their grief, have a bit of a reminder of the dedication and the commitment of those veterans. The honors that we should be providing these veterans and their families are important. They are particularly important at a time of grief. The Senator from Washington is determined, with the support of many of us, including the Senators from Maryland, to have the Defense Department make this happen and make this work. And I just want to thank her. There are a lot of families who will never know her name, but because there will be honors at funerals where they are requested, they will in fact have been served by her efforts here on the floor. I want to thank her for them as well as for many of us. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we spoke with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Carolyn Becraft. She is in charge of their family program. They oppose this amendment. When the Senator says he can't believe that the Defense Department would not support this, or the people in charge of families and child care would not support this amendment, we asked them what their position was. Their position is that the child care program is funded in a way to expand the availability of child care in a planned way. I want to emphasize that. We have a significant expansion in child care in the Defense Department underway. It is because of the initiative of many people within the Defense Department and outside, including Members of this body. It is under the supervision of a Secretary of Defense who is totally committed to child care. He showed that when he was in this body, and he has continued to show that as Secretary of Defense. The Defense Department has this significant expansion, which is ongoing in a planned way, and that is why they do not support this additional increase. That comes from the Assistant Secretary of Defense who is responsible for dealing with the needs of families in the Defense Department.