Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the DoD authorization bill, as reported, includes a cut of some $550 million in classified intelligence programs. I serve on both the Armed Services and the Intelligence Committees. I am very aware of the tough choices that members of both committees have to make in discharging our respective responsibilities. However, I must say that the magnitude of this cut to intelligence programs disturbed me, as it did other members of the Committee. Based on these concerns, the Committee agreed during the markup of the Defense Authorization Bill to try to come to some compromise with the Intelligence Committee that would reduce the magnitude of this reduction. This amendment restores $275 million of the original reduction made by the Committee. I am glad that we have worked together to achieve this outcome. The bulk of the funds to increase the level of intelligence programs in this amendment comes from one particular program, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD program. The THAAD program is designed to meet a theater missile defense requirement. I have supported theater missile defense programs like THAAD because we have a clear requirement for theater missile defense systems. The THAAD program has had a number of testing failures, and two days ago, there was another unfortunate test failure in the program. Mr. President, this failure led the Committee to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to adjust the fiscal year 1999 funding for the THAAD system. While we do not know the full implications of this test failure, it is clear that it would now be premature for the THAAD program to move from the demonstration/validation phase of the program to engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) next year as proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget. The Committee amendment to the bill implementing the agreement with the Intelligence Committee eliminates EMD funding for THAAD in fiscal year 1999, since it is unrealistic to expect THAAD to enter EMD during that period. I must point out that the Committee is proposing that the Senate make this adjustment without prejudice to the THAAD program. I believe that the Committee will need to follow this program as we proceed to conference with the House on this bill. If it turns out that we need to adjust this position to one that is better for the underlying THAAD program, I will work with Chairman Thurmond to do just that.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if my friend from Virginia would yield to me so I could ask the Senator from Arkansas a question?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on the matter that was set aside, I wonder if the Senator could tell us whether or not there have been any discussions between you and those committees that we have now asked their reaction from relative to holding hearings on that amendment. Could he give us a little background on that?

Mr. LEVIN. If I could ask the Senator an additional question. I am not familiar with his amendment. Is this particular amendment--has this been introduced as a bill in the Senate separately, or was it a House bill that came over and was referred? And, if so, was it referred to Banking or Foreign Relations?

Mr. LEVIN. Has the Banking Committee indicated that they are likely to hold a hearing and have a markup on this bill?

Mr. LEVIN. Have there been discussions between you and the chairman?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of our committee in bringing the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1999 to the floor. As we all know, as Senator Thurmond has so eloquently reminded us, this is the last year that he will be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, through his choice. Therefore, it is the last year that he will be bringing an authorization bill to the floor. I just want to thank him and commend him for the commitment that he has made to our Nation's defense. It has been longstanding, it has been a matter of keen devotion. It is really a significant moment for me to be here with him as this defense authorization bill comes to the floor. I know I am thanking him on behalf of all of the members of our committee and the Senate for the energy he has placed into this issue of defense, security, and this bill itself.

Mr. LEVIN. I simply want to add my thanks to the Senator from Nebraska. Every year when this bill comes up, he is here. It is a very important contribution which he is making to the national defense. We on the Armed Services Committee do the best we can, but we have colleagues such as the Senator from Nebraska who add their immense expertise and passion and feeling about these issues, and it is significantly important to us and I thank the Senator for doing that.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield just for one moment?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. On the DOD bill? I have to object. There are too many pending amendments. I am sorry, if the Senator can clear that----

Mr. LEVIN. I object. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from California is on her way and will be here in a few moments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I believe we did enter a unanimous consent agreement that the Senator from California be recognized after the disposition of the Hutchinson amendments, since she was in the middle of her remarks at the time that the regular order required us to begin the last votes. I am wondering if we could just spend 30 seconds seeing if the Senator from California would like the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield on that point?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the reason for my concern about this amendment is reflected in the statement that was sent to us by the administration. I very much support the purpose of this amendment. I think it is right on target, and I commend the Senator from Arkansas for focusing on this problem. But the statement of the administration policy raises a concern that the requirement to disclose publicly the list of Chinese military companies operating directly or indirectly in the United States could implicate classified information that needs to be protected in the interests of national security, i.e., intelligence sources and methods. That is the basis for my concern, and therefore I will vote ``no'' on a voice vote, and I ask unanimous consent that this statement of administration policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the completion of this vote, the floor be restored to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bingaman.

Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from North Dakota want a minute at this point? I yield a minute to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 additional minutes. Mr. President, the ABM Treaty is not some abstract relic. It is a living commitment which has been reasserted at the highest levels at a summit in Helsinki in 1997. President Clinton and President Yeltsin issued the following joint statement. Now, this isn't some person writing an op-ed piece in some newspaper. These are the Presidents of two nations with the largest nuclear inventories in the world, President Clinton and President Yeltsin, expressing their commitment to strengthen the strategic stability and international security, emphasizing the importance of further reductions in strategic offensive arms, and recognizing the fundamental significance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty for these objectives, as well as the necessity for effective theater missile defense systems, considered their common task to preserve the ABM Treaty, prevent circumvention of it, and enhance its viability. Then later in that same statement, both Presidents state that the United States and Russia have recently devoted special attention to developing measures aimed at assuring confidence of the parties that their ballistic missile defense activities will not lead to circumvention of the ABM Treaty, to which the parties have repeatedly reaffirmed their adherence. This bill before the Senate, where there is a motion to proceed pending, surely will undermine the confidence of Russia that we are adhering to a treaty. Since the commitment which this bill makes to deploy missile defenses will almost certainly--almost certainly-- violate that treaty--and again I emphasize, if that is not the intent and if that is to be precluded, then the words ``treaty compliant'' should be added. But I think, as we all know because we debated this issue so many times, that is not the intent of this resolution. Mr. President, I hope the words of our top military officers will be heeded and that the danger of this bill will be considered. Its intent, obviously, is to contribute to the security, but its effect is to lessen the security of this Nation. We simply cannot afford that risk.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday, Senator McCain and Senator Hollings proposed a managers' amendment, Amendment No. 2389 to S. 1618, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934. The amendment significantly improves the protections for consumers against ``slammers,'' persons who deliberately deceive consumers and change their long distance carrier without proper authorization. The manager's amendment included two of my amendments which were cosponsored by Senator Durbin and Senator Glenn. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing recently on slamming. At this hearing, we became aware of the fact that slammers intentionally used names like Phone Company and Long Distance Services to deliberately deceive customers on their phone bills. Usually local telephone companies or billing agents precede an itemized list of long distance calls by printing the name of the long distance service provider. When deceptive company names are used, customers are not aware that their long distance service provider has been changed. My intention was to remedy this situation by requiring the billing companies to specify the long distance provider using a statement like, ``Your provider for the following long distance service is------------ '' . If that type of statement were made conspicuously and clearly stated on a consumer's phone bill before the itemized long distance charges, consumers would know if their long distance carrier had been changed. Section 231 of the manager's amendment, entitled Obligations of Telephone Billing Agents, has language that differs from my proposed amendment. The language in the Manager's amendment is language that was suggested by the staff at the Federal Communications Commission. I chose not to use the FCC language because my staff contacted several telephone companies and learned that if we used the FCC language several problems could be created which may result in potential increased costs to consumers. GAO has advised my staff that some of the requirments in the provision as passed simply can't be done. Because of time constraints we were unable to resolve the language in the provision. It is not our intention to increase consumers costs for telephone services in order to alert them about ``slammers.'' If the current bill increases costs, and we believe it could, we need to modify this section so consumers are protected without having to pay for that protection. I sincerely hope we can continue to work to improve this section in the conference committee, if there is one, or before the bill is enacted into law, to make sure that we are not creating a burden on telecommunications carriers which will be passed on to consumers.