Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me say that, as usual, our friend from Minnesota is fighting for a cause that is an important one. I think he is one of the leaders in this body of trying to make sure we have enough money for child care, child development, and it is important that leadership exist in this area. I commend him on that. The defense budget this year shows a greater than 10-percent increase in this area. So I think the Defense Department is right when they give us the facts and tell us that they have a program for significant improvement in child care, in part, by the way, because of the efforts of people in this body many years ago. They have a projected significant increase over these years, in part, may I say, because of our former colleague, Bill Cohen. Secretary Cohen was a leader in the effort to provide child care in this Senate. He is totally dedicated to it in the military. The DOD effort, the planned effort to significantly increase the amount of child care, is requiring them to go off base frequently in order to do that, to get facilities off the site of the facility itself, and to go into the neighboring communities to get child care. But they are on that course of action. They are doing that, and they should. But they have put in this budget this year approximately a 10- percent increase in funding for child care. It is part of a significant increase that has been projected over a number of years for child care, and it is in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, who, when he was in the Senate, showed a tremendous commitment in this area and has continued that commitment as Secretary of Defense. So the increases that are significant have been planned. They are proceeding in a planned way. The Defense Department feels that it is proceeding as quickly and as administratively feasible and efficiently, and I would, therefore, oppose the Senator's amendment. I do so with some reluctance because of the subject matter. But despite that reluctance, I feel that the Defense Department is proceeding on pace, in a planned way, and most importantly, proceeding in a way that involves a significant increase in expansion in child care, despite the fact that the number of people in the armed services is being reduced, and it is all under the leadership of a Secretary of Defense who has shown a commitment to child care over the years. So for those reasons I will oppose the Senator's amendment. But, again, I express my feeling that, as he so often does, he is addressing an issue that is an important issue for the Nation.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I need 5 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment, if adopted, will dig us into a deeper hole. We are not authorizing a new BRAC round in this bill. That is not before us. This amendment will make it more difficult for the Secretary of Defense to realign bases that he currently can without a BRAC round.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time is left?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just 1 additional minute. The source of these additional funds is across-the-board reduction in every budget activity in the Defense Department. It is not aimed at some category called ``waste.'' I think if there were such a category, everybody in this body would identify it. And I have spent a good part of my life seeking to identify it, have identified a lot of it, and we have been able to get rid of a lot of it. This amendment would take money from every budget activity, in a very small amount, which the Senator has identified. But those budget activities for weapons systems are just as important as they are. Research and development is part of that. Those budget activities include DOD schools, family support centers, commissaries. Families need those things too. So when the Senator makes an unallocated cut across each budget activity, many of those budget activities are as critical to those very same families as we are trying to help with our child care program. Mr. President, again, I oppose this amendment. I hope it is defeated. But I want to end on a positive note and again say how much we appreciate the strength with which the Senator from Minnesota supports the kind of causes which are so important to the people of this Nation and to the people in the military. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator Dodd for his amendment. It is inconceivable to me, as it was to him, that a retired reservist would have to wait for up to 9 months to receive the first pension check. The Army must fix this problem, and quickly. We will do everything we can to ensure that this issue is addressed and is resolved very quickly, and it will be Senator Dodd's tenacity that is going to drive the appropriate quick response and outcome on this issue. So the amendment has strong support in the Armed Services Committee, and it has been cleared by both sides, I understand. I believe the amendment could be adopted at this point. Mr. President. I understand the amendment has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for 1 minute.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I can have just 30 seconds on the Burns amendment? I want to commend the Senator from Montana on his amendment. While there may be priorities which I would give a higher priority to, including readiness, this amendment fits the needs of our military personnel and meets the tests that the Armed Services Committee has set for military construction projects. I thank him for meeting those criteria. We try to apply those criteria across the board, and here is what they are--if I can just take 30 seconds. Each one of Senator Burns' projects is contained in the Defense Department's Future Year's Defense Program, FYDP; they are all considered mission essential by the Defense Department; they are consistent with past Base Closure Commission decisions; and they are all projects that can be executed in fiscal year 1999. I thank him for the care with which he has selected these quality-of- life projects. They all meet these criteria.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is agreeable on this side, as I think it is on the other side.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent when that amendment is sent to the desk it be considered read, it be considered passed, reconsidered, and tabled.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me join Senator Thurmond, our chairman, in thanking a number of people, the members of our committee. Let me not single out anybody, but I do want to pay a special tribute to Senator Warner, Senator Thurmond's loyal lieutenant, who really worked along with Senator Thurmond and made it possible. We have great members of this Armed Services Committee who worked with us on a bipartisan basis--David Lyles on our side and staff on our side, Les Brownlee and staff on the Republican side, working together, all the time, to try to fashion a bill on which all of us at the end can come together. We want to thank our leaders, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle who worked so hard to make this kind of effort happen in just a few days. It seemed like a long period of time this was on the floor, but as complicated a bill as this is, and involving as many issues and as much money as this bill does, we really, I think, disposed of this bill with great dispatch as well as bipartisanship. This bill is a tribute to Senator Thurmond. Many have paid tribute to him tonight, and I won't repeat that except to say I will always remember this evening, naming a bill that strengthens our national security after Senator Strom Thurmond, who has meant so much to the national security of this country. It has been a real pleasure and an honor to work with Senator Thurmond. I know that my staff, our staff here, as well as all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle felt very, very good that this bill was named after Senator Strom Thurmond.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, each of these amendments has been cleared by us. Many of these are amendments from this side of the aisle and of course many from the Republican side of the aisle. But they have all been cleared. We support the adoption of these amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the tritium production issue that is the subject of the Sessions amendment is a very important issue. The Department of Energy must have a level playing field to make a sound decision on a tritium production source. We should not restrict the options available to the Department of Energy in making that choice. The Sessions amendment would ensure a level playing field for the Department to make its choice. That is why I strongly support the Sessions amendment. Mr. President, I will work hard to ensure that the conference on the defense authorization bill will result in a level playing field to assure the Energy Department can make the best possible choice. That is in our national interest. Mr. President, Secretary of Defense William Cohen agrees that there should be no restriction on the options being considered by the Department of Energy on a future tritium production source. He has sent a letter to the Armed Services Committee today that urges the Senate not to adopt any amendment that would restrict DOE's options. His letter concludes with the following sentence: ``Passage of any such amendment would place the Defense Authorization bill at risk.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Cohen be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. It is only because the hour is late and we are trying to wrap up this bill that I only will spend a moment saying how important it is that we adopt this amendment in paying respects to our chairman, who has done such an extraordinary job in moving our committee along in these last few years as chairman, and as a member for so many years before that. As ranking member, I had the privilege of working with Senator Strom Thurmond, for Senator Thurmond is a chairman who approached these issues on a bipartisan basis, as the defense budget should be approached. He has always set forth a determination that we protect our Nation's security first and foremost, and that the men and women in our Armed Forces be the focus of our resolve, and the protection and security of this Nation through them be what is first and foremost in our minds. So this is a small gesture that the Senator from Virginia is leading tonight. I want to commend him for thinking of this and for taking the leadership on this. I want to tell him it is my pleasure to join with him and do what we do so often, act on a bipartisan basis in the Armed Services Committee. I congratulate Senator Thurmond. This will be the last defense authorization bill that he will manage, but there will be many, many, many, many more years of energetic efforts that will be forthcoming from the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I hope not to. I have just been informed that we have to clear up one additional issue on this side. I surely hope not to object. We worked very hard on this unanimous consent agreement. We are going to have to reserve that right for another couple of moments while one issue, and possibly two, are cleared up, which I have just been informed about. I suggest, if the Senator from Arizona is willing, laying aside the unanimous consent request, and if the Senator from Maine would be willing to be interrupted again, assuming we can quickly get clearance, perhaps we could do that.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment. A number of Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee are already cosponsors, I believe, on the amendment. If not, I will ask unanimous consent that we be added as cosponsors. I believe the names of those cosponsors are already on the amendment. We support this amendment as an offset. It corrects a deficiency building up in military pay for some time. We think it is a good amendment and I hope it is adopted by the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the cover page of the amici brief referred to before that was filed by Senator Byrd, Senator Moynihan, and myself be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the victory which we celebrate today is truly a victory for the American people and our Constitution. It has been a matter of real pride for me to be associated with Senators Byrd and Moynihan in the effort that we have made, first when we went to court to challenge the line-item veto and were parties where it was ruled we had no standing, and the substantive issue was then delayed to the decision of the Court today. But then when, as Amicus, we banded together--no longer was Senator Hatfield there, who is no longer a Senator, who was with us I know in spirit, and who had been with us in our first effort--to file an amicus brief to point out and to argue the fundamental premise of this Constitution's Article I. The article that relates to enactment of laws is that the only way a law can be made, modified, or repealed is if the Congress is involved. And Congress may want to give the President the power to repeal a law or modify a law or even enact a law on its own. We may want, for whatever momentary reason we have, to give a President the power to make, modify, or repeal a law, but, thank God, we have a Constitution which says we cannot do that. And, thank God, we have a Supreme Court today which upheld that very fundamental provision of the Constitution. What we tried to do--the Congress tried to do--in this law was to give the President the power to repeal a law which he just signed. What this law tried to do, and thankfully was not allowed to do, was to give the President the power to create a law today with his signature, a bill which had passed both Houses and which became law when he affixed his signature. But then this Line-Item Veto Act said that if he, within a certain number of days, wanted to modify that law, unless Congress acted to do something to the contrary, that he could unilaterally, on his own, without congressional involvement, change the law of the land. Now, when we were all kids we learned about this Constitution and what those magic words ``law of the land'' meant, and what they mean today, and what, the Good Lord willing, they will always mean in this country--``law of the land''--all of us bound by it equally, no matter what our station or income or power, all bound by those words, ``law of the land.'' When the President affixes his signature to a bill, that bill then takes on that power, in a free society, of being the law of the land. What the line-item veto bill, in the form we passed it, tried to do was to then say, ``Well, yes, it's the law of the land today, but the President can undo that law by himself, without congressional approval, if he does it in a certain number of days, in a certain type of way.'' The Supreme Court said today that that cannot stand. The fundamental reasons have been cited by Senator Byrd, the mentor of all of us relative to the Constitution, and in so many other ways, and also cited by Senator Moynihan. The fundamental reason is, as the Federalist put it, as James Madison put it, that there could be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person. It is so fundamental, we often forget it. We should never forget it. The Supreme Court emblazoned it again on the constitutional consciousness of this country today. There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person. What this bill tried to do was to unite that power in the President by saying that he could make a law today as part of the legislative process, of which he must be a part, but then alone, as the executive, undo that law tomorrow--he could repeal a law on his own. That is what this Congress tried to give a President of the United States. What a power. And what a road that would have taken us down. To think that we would even consider giving a President the power to repeal or modify the law of the land on his own without congressional involvement, changing a law which had been properly enacted and presented--to think that we would do that is almost unimaginable. We tried, Congress did, and, thank God, we failed. I want to close by again thanking Senator Byrd for his leadership. I will always treasure a copy of the Constitution which he has inscribed to me, the same Constitution which he carries with him every day of his life, in his pocket, which he has so often on this floor brought out to make a point. I want to thank him. I want to thank Senator Moynihan and Senator Hatfield. I want to thank the counsel who represented us on this amicus brief that we just filed successfully: Mike Davidson, Linda Gustitus, Mark Patterson. I also want to thank, on behalf of all of us, the attorneys who represented us in our earlier effort, where we did not succeed because of a technical reason but where we nonetheless established that beachhead which today led to victory. And those lawyers were Mike Davidson, at that time as well; Lloyd Cutler; Lou Cohen; Alan Morrison; and Chuck Cooper. I also wish to thank Peter Kiefhaber. Although he is not a lawyer, he has one of the keenest legal minds--if you will excuse me--that I have ever seen. With their help, and the help of many others in this body, but mainly with the leadership of Senator Byrd, the position today was sustained that our liberty has been preserved in the most fundamental way. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Apparently, Senator Byrd wants to be heard. Will you withhold?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.