Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate continue in a period of morning business with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this bill is the 47th consecutive national defense authorization bill that has come out of the committee and been brought to the Senate floor for debate and passage. Every year since 1961, the Senate has met the challenge, overcome obstacles, and negotiated ourselves to the point of final passage. Because of the vital importance of this bill to the men and women of our Armed Forces and to the Nation, this was a bill that was worth fighting for for passage. It is part of the rich tradition of the Senate. We all can be proud of that tradition. It is also part of our custom to thank our staffs and Members. For some this sounds routine, but it never should be. My thanks go to the ranking member, Senator McCain. His leadership helped forge this bill through the committee. I next acknowledge our former chairman particularly, Senator Warner, because of everything he did to make this bill possible and to get to the point where we are today. Working within arm's reach of John Warner for the past 29 years has truly been one of the highlights, if not the highlight, of my Senate career. He is truly a good friend, not just to me and my wife Barbara but also to this institution and to the Nation. He has stood watch over national defense for almost three decades, with unwavering dedication. Before that, he stood watch because of his being Secretary of the Navy. Because of his being in the Navy, the Marines, he is truly a profile in courage. Next year, we promise we will pick up his banner. We will carry on in his honor, just as he has always done for the Nation. I thank our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff and give them a special word of thanks for giving us the time to get this bill to the Senate and through the Senate. To our committee members, thanks for your great work on a bipartisan basis the entire year. This bill could not have gotten to this point, with all of our problems, all the bumps in the road--and there are many that lie ahead--but we could not have gotten to this point without the bipartisan support of the Armed Services Committee and our staff. We have one-quarter of the Senate on our committee. We have worked together in committee, and our differences on this bill did not divide us, as we reported the bill by unanimous vote. To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel, thank you for drafting about 300 amendments. We wish more of them could have been adopted, but, nonetheless, they had to be drafted, and we had to do what we do, which is to do everything we can to get Members' amendments passed. To our committee staff members, thank you. That is about all we can say. You have earned our thanks and the recognition of the Senate for the time and dedication you have shown on this legislation. Rick DeBobes, who is our staff director, and Mike Kostiw, who is our Republican staff director, and their talented staffs worked amazingly hard. We have a lot of work ahead of us to get to the point where we can pass a bill in the next couple of weeks. We have a huge amount of work. I hate to tell them that, but they know it. They also know, I hope, how appreciated they are. They work 24/7, and they work magic, and they always seem to believe that sleep is overrated. It is not. I hope they can get some in the next few days. So thank you to our staff. They deserve tremendous recognition for their professionalism. As an expression of the gratitude of the members of our committee, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the members of our staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Given that objection to our going to conference, I now ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m., morning business be closed; that after the bill is reported, all postcloture time be yielded back, the first- and second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the bill be then read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, it then be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following calendar items: Nos. 733, 734, and 735; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 3001 as passed by the Senate be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 3002; Division B, S. 3003; and Division C, S. 3004; that these bills be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; further, that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I will again thank my friend for all of his efforts on this bill. He has been, as always, a highly constructive force. We could not even be this far without his great support. I am indebted to him and the Senate is indebted to him, I hope, and the Nation again is indebted to Senator Warner. Again, I thank our good friend from Louisiana. We have interrupted her for a little longer than I promised.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me first thank our dear friend from Louisiana for allowing this interruption. It is a very important presentation. In a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request. Before doing that, there has been a lot of inquiry as to whether a managers' package is included in this. It is not. It has been unable to be cleared on the other side, so it is not included in this unanimous consent request, so that everybody understands it. I now ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m., morning business be closed; that after the bill is reported, all postcloture time be yielded back, the first and second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the bill then be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, it then be in order for the Senate to consider, en bloc, the following calendar items: Nos. 733, 734, and 735; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 3001, as passed by the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 3002; Division B, S. 3003; Division C, S. 3004; that these bills be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, en bloc; further, that the considering of these items appear separately in the Record. Further--and this is what I am going to call the second half of this unanimous consent request--the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 758, H.R. 5658, the House companion, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3001, as amended and passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that upon passage of H.R. 5658, as amended, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees without further intervening action or debate, and that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me first thank my dear friend from Virginia. He is accurate in his statements about differences not being able to be resolved in terms of a number of amendments which we had hoped to get to votes. My statement referred only to a managers' package on which we had cleared about 100 amendments. That is the one I made reference to before.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. It shouldn't trigger a problem. We use it all day around here. I am simply stating the order for the two Senators to know. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maine be recognized for 10 minutes, and the Senator from Virginia then be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator from Maine how much time she would be using.

Mr. LEVIN. If I could inquire of the Senator from Virginia how much time he would be using.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia for outlining the history of this issue in which we are involved. I am particularly gratified that he now agrees the DeMint amendment will be a significant abdication of legislative power to the executive branch. The reason that would be true is, there would be no reference to the line items we have worked so hard on in law or by reference in law, and that would mean the only thing that would be remaining would be a committee report that has all the work of our committee, not just the earmarks which we have added but also the lines we have added or subtracted to what the President has requested. That is the essential point relative to the DeMint amendment. It would be an absolutely revolutionary change in the powers of the purse, shifting a great deal of that power to the executive branch. I am delighted the Senator from Virginia has stated it exactly that clearly, or approximately that clearly, so that, hopefully, we can, if not unanimously but on a bipartisan basis defeat the DeMint amendment, if it is offered. Then the question comes up: How can we then incorporate all our effort in committee into the law? There is a lot of problems with doing it, which we pointed out during the committee debate, including the lack of flexibility that this would result in for the President in terms of reprogramming because now every line becomes a program, and that means it would be harder to shift money than it is now because it is easier to shift money within a program through reprogramming than it is between programs. That was an argument which we used in committee. We believe it is true that the executive branch will have less flexibility when it comes to reprogramming if every single line is in law. However, if that is what this body wishes to do--to make it less flexible for the President to offer reprogramming suggestions--that is a problem the executive branch should have, not ours. Our problem is it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a conference report--first of all, it is difficult enough to get to conference, but then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bring a conference report back in the next couple weeks. We have gone through these numbers with the minority. We have a clear assessment by the Government Printing Office that it would add about 4\1/2\ days to their work if every single line were made part of the bill rather than being simply incorporated by reference in the bill, as it now is. We should not take a chance on jeopardizing this bill. This bill is too important to be jeopardized. The difference between incorporating all these lines by reference in the bill and actually printing them in the bill is either minor, minute or nonexistent legally. What this bill does is incorporate by reference all these lines. They are incorporate into the bill. They are transparent--as transparent as though they were printed in the bill. This green document is no less transparent than this white document. They are both equally transparent. The work of our committee is laid out in the moment in the green document. In this white document, which is the bill, we incorporate by reference in the bill all the line items so they are in the bill, and they can be changed by an amendment which says no money will be spent or less money will be spent for a particular item. It is very readily addressable by the Senate on the floor. The transparency issue is the same. They are both transparent and should be. So then the question becomes: Is the nonexistent or minute difference between incorporating all these charts in here by law or actually printing them in here, should that risk the passage of this bill? They can be addressed by amendment on the floor of the Senate, even though they are incorporated by reference. Now, this bill, as my good friend from Virginia says, is too important for us not to pass. We have never not passed an authorization bill, and this should not be the first year, when we have troops in harm's way, when we do not pass a Defense authorization bill. There are hundreds of provisions in here which directly affect the troops and their families. It would be unconscionable for us not to pass a Defense authorization bill. The reason for jeopardizing it simply does not hold water. So that is the dilemma we are in. If the Warner amendment is adopted, it would seriously jeopardize the chances of being able to pass a bill, even if we can get to conference in the next couple of days. That assessment was made over the weekend in terms of the number of days' delay that would result. That assessment was made by the Government Printing Office. They spent 700 person hours over the weekend at the Government Printing Office to give us this assessment. This is not some casual assessment off the back of an envelope; this is a very serious assessment that was made at huge expense over the weekend in order to give us the most accurate idea as to what the delay would be if we had to print each one of those thousands of lines in the bill itself, instead of incorporating them in the bill by reference. We should not jeopardize the passage of this bill. That is the only difficulty I now have as a legislator with the Warner amendment. The other difficulty, which we pointed out in committee, has to do with the lack of flexibility that would result to the executive branch in their reprogramming requests. That is a problem the executive branch needs to face, I would think, but as a legislator, what we have to protect is the power of our purse, the power of this Congress to make changes. That is protected in the Warner amendment. What the Warner amendment does is put at risk this bill, as it may be physically impossible to get to conference, the conference completed, and a conference report back by the end of next week. If we knew there was going to be a lameduck, there would be no problem because we could do this in a lameduck session no matter how much time it took between now and then, but we don't know that there will be a lameduck session. So the question is whether we are willing to take this risk. I, for one, cannot in good conscience risk the passage of this bill. Although I don't have any problem now with the Warner amendment in terms of its substance, it is what it would result in, in terms of the bill not being able to be adopted as a practical matter. My problems with the DeMint amendment are very serious and severe. I hope that amendment is not offered, and if it is, I would hope, on a bipartisan basis, it would be rejected by a Senate which has the responsibility to abide by the Constitution of the United States and maintain the power of the purse.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Before I do that, Senator Webb came to the floor when I assured him he would be able to discuss his amendment, and I am wondering if we could ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be recognized as soon as our colloquy is completed and then that Senator Collins be recognized after Senator Webb.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Aligning Incentives: The Case for Delivery System Reform.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Restoring the Rule of Law'' on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10:15 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5893 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 900, H.R. 5551.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be authorized to sign the duly enrolled copy of S. 3406, a bill to restore the intent and protections of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.