Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I, of course, will not--how much time is left before our vote?

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will save me 30 seconds, I would appreciate it.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me first thank Senators Graham and Ayotte for their contributions this afternoon and long before this afternoon on this subject. The best answer to some of the criticism we have heard this afternoon--the FBI has been successful. Why change it?--read the law, read the conference report. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . . . It is flatout explicit in the law. Something else we have heard: We are doing something for the first time--long-term custody for American citizens. Read the conference report: Nothing in this section shall be con- strued to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens. . . . I urge people to read our conference reports read the Senate bill, before they accept some of the arguments which have been made against this conference report. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the Press Secretary for the President that was issued yesterday on behalf of the President be printed in the Record, including this line: [W]e have concluded that the language does not-- The language in the conference report-- challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect telling intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people-- And the key words for many people-- and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto.

Mr. LEVIN. Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Congress cannot absolve itself of the responsibility to balance the budget by passing a constitutional amendment. Congress has an existing constitutional duty to control the purse. If Congress has the will to balance the budget, it can do so. If it does not have that will, no constitutional amendment can be a substitute. We knew that in 1996, which I believe was the last time the Senate seriously evaluated a balanced budget amendment. While we did not pass the balanced budget amendment, we did adopt budgets and policies that created the first surpluses in decades, enabling the United States to begin to reduce its debt load. Unfortunately, that fiscal sensibility was washed away by irresponsible, unfunded Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and two unfunded wars. Once again, we find ourselves in a deep fiscal hole. We can and must dig ourselves out of it, as we did in the 1990s, by taking a balanced approach, restoring revenues, and making sensible spending cuts. But that is not a constitutional question. That is a political one. Can we, as a Congress, pass the tough measures needed to restore fiscal discipline? I have proposed a seven-point plan for reducing the deficit. Bipartisan commissions have proposed making spending cuts and increasing revenues and realistic folks from all parts of the political spectrum agree Congress needs to address revenues, as well as spending, if we are to achieve real deficit reduction. Congress needs to make tough choices and is failing to do so. One more procedural promise--this time in the form of a constitutional amendment--is not going to get the job done. While the details of the two amendments before us differ in many respects, there are real questions as to how either could be enforced. For instance, the Udall amendment says: The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. What would happen if Congress failed to adopt the implementing legislation that lives up to the terms of the amendment? If it does not have the will to make cuts and raise revenues, what makes people think Congress will be able to agree on implementing legislation? The amendments raise far more questions than they answer. For example, would a court be willing to hear a case alleging a failure by the Congress to fulfill its duties or would a court treat such a challenge as a political question that is beyond its reach? Who would even be able to bring a case alleging a violation? Who would the case be brought against and what would the remedies be? Could a judge nullify a budget or a law on the basis that it somehow violated the amendment? Which appropriations bill pushed us over the limit--the last one adopted? Would a judge have the power to put the budget in balance by ordering specific spending cuts? How would those cuts be identified and set? Would the judge be tasked with reviewing the entire Federal budget and then making cuts? Would the judge be able to compel Congress to enact cuts? What would happen if Congress failed to comply with such an order? Does the judge make changes and substitute his or her priorities for those of Congress? These same questions could be asked about revenue increases as well. A judge cannot mandate revenue increases under the McConnell amendment. The resolution, apparently, would allow judges to make spending cuts, however. But that dangerous shift of power to the judiciary arises only by implication in the McConnell resolution. What is explicit under McConnell is that taxes and revenues can only be raised by a two-thirds vote. So even closing loopholes to end tax dodges and raise revenue would require a supermajority. That is the opposite of a balanced budget amendment provision. That makes it more difficult to balance the budget. The American people do not need new processes or hollow promises. They do not need a constitutional amendment that raises more questions than it answers. They need Congress and the President to do our jobs. A balanced budget amendment will not force Congress and the President to do anything, because it is, as a practical matter, unenforceable. And when it does not work, public cynicism would only deepen. It already is plenty deep. There is only one way to balance the budget. That is with the willpower to make the hard choices. Those of us elected to public office have that obligation now. And if we fail, we as individuals will be judged by our own electorate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I agree that the authorities allowing for earlier receipt of Reserve retired pay should apply to members of the retired Reserve called to Active Duty in support of a contingency operation to the same extent it applies to other members of the reserves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEVIN. On my time. Quick question. After the 30 minutes expires, because we are not going to have a vote now, there would be additional time should the Senator need it after that 30 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I have no objection.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there on our side?

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

Mr. LEVIN. I wanted to have a couple minutes. I wonder if Senator McCain is here, if there is an objection to extending this by 10 minutes. Is there objection? I am not going to do that without him here. Madam President, if the other side is ready to go, they can start using the time on their side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would ask that there be 5 additional minutes, evenly divided, so we could have 3 minutes left on our side. I would split that with the Senator from Illinois.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Leahy authorized me and told me he was withdrawing this amendment relative to military custody because of all of the actions which have been previously taken. I am very confident that is what he told me, so I am going to withdraw that amendment on his behalf.

Mr. LEVIN. There was a provision in the bill relative to the Freedom of Information Act which, by agreement, was modified.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and all those who have been involved in working out this approach that allows us now to vote on two amendments, the original Feinstein amendment that is pending, plus an alternative which I think, hopefully, will command great support.

Mr. LEVIN. Before the Senator yields time to the Senator----

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator refrain for 1 minute? While Senator Feinstein is here, I understand it is now preferable from our leader that the vote be at 2 o'clock, not immediately following this half-hour debate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we return to the bill, which will be after Senator Cornyn speaks, we move immediately to Feinstein amendment No. 1125, and that there be a 30- minute debate evenly divided and that the vote would occur immediately following that. I withdraw my request.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is objection on this side, and I will attempt to bring together Senator Cornyn and the objectors so he can hear from them why they object, but in the meantime I object.