Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield a moment first to Senator Webb to comment on the question which Senator McCain just raised about whether people can voluntarily go back before the dwell time period is over, and then I will yield myself 8 minutes, after which I will yield the remainder of my time to the control of Senator Webb.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me first thank Senator McCain for his great generosity in terms of his comments about the committee and the operations of our committee. As he well knows, our committee has had a great tradition of bipartisanship. He has made a major contribution, always, to that tradition. As ranking member, he has more than continued that tradition. He has made a major contribution to it and to the bill that is before us and to the bipartisan flavor of that bill. While there obviously are and will be differences--which are understandable and appropriate--as he well points out, this is a bill that had unanimous support in the committee. We, in the next week or so, will be hearing differences on issues, including Iraq, and that is totally what we are all about: to express our feelings in a civil way and in a strong way. But I add my thanks to him for his contribution for so many decades going back. When he speaks about the situation we are in in Iraq, he speaks with not only great feeling but also with great experience, and I think every Member of this body treasures our relationship with Senator McCain and the experience he brings to this debate. He has the commitment, I hope, of everybody in this body that the debate, as we proceed relative to Iraq or any other issues in this week and next, will proceed in a very civil way. This issue requires all of the wisdom we can muster, all of the experiences of the various Members, and he has my assurance, and I think he would have the assurance of every Member of this body, that the tone he sets and wants us to maintain will indeed be maintained by this Senate. I am confident of that, and thank him again for his remarks and for his great contribution to this bill. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which was not available when the report on that bill, S. 1547, was filed, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii, on this side of the aisle, the order then be Senator Biden and Senator Boxer.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Senator Biden was to be recognized next. I don't see him on the floor at this moment, so I will note the absence of a quorum for a few moments, and if he does not arrive, then I will give my remarks on the Webb amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from California, and I have no objection at all.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while we disagree on a very critical issue, I as always look forward to working with Senator McCain to work out agreements so we can move this bill forward. I am confident we will pass the authorization bill this year, the way we have every other year, for the reasons Senator McCain gives, which are the critically important provisions in here for the men and women in our military and their families. The difference is apparently as to whether this is an appropriate place to debate Iraq policy. It is an authorization bill, which, it seems to me, is a very appropriate place to debate policy; in fact, I think is the most appropriate place to debate a policy issue such as Iraq. I have not wished this to be debated on an appropriations bill, because I don't think we ought to try to have a policy debate and decision when it involves the funding of our troops because I think hopefully all of us want to fund our troops. This is an issue as to whether we should change course in Iraq. This is a debate which is a healthy debate, it is an essential debate. I look forward actually to working with Senator McCain to see if we cannot come up with time agreements on debates on Iraq--on these amendments on Iraq. There is going to be more than one amendment. There are going to be a number of amendments and hopefully we can come up with time agreements so we can have these debates, have votes on the Iraq issue, and then move on, and move forward and adopt an authorization bill with a lot of other amendments that are pending as well. I am, as always, an optimist. I am particularly an optimist when I look at Senator McCain, when I realize that we have worked together before, as I have with Senator Warner, on issues that look intractable but which are not and can be worked out, and hopefully there can be time agreements on these amendments relative to Iraq--which are important amendments. I cannot think of anything that affects the well-being of our troops or our Nation, frankly, more at this moment than the question of policy in Iraq, as to whether that policy needs to be changed. There are differences as to whether we ought to change course in Iraq, and there are some who feel that apparently the policy is working. There are some of us who feel the status quo is not working, we need to change it. It is not the debate we should have or can have at this moment. We are in the middle of a discussion on the Webb amendment. But it is appropriate that on this bill, the Senate act. If anything, it has been too long, as far as I am concerned, since the Senate has taken a position on this. The last time we did it 4 months ago, the President vetoed it. We were unable to have our will expressed in a way that was not vetoed. Waiting until September is not an answer, because there is no reason to believe that an effort in September will not be filibustered. There is no reason why in September, the people who oppose the change in course, the Senators who oppose it, will not get up and say: Well, let's wait until October when there is another report which is due. We cannot simply delay carrying out our responsibility. We cannot delay a debate which is on the most critical subject on the minds of the people of America. Waiting for September, when a general is going to give us a recommendation, and the President is going to give us a recommendation, is a delaying tactic on an issue which is the single most important issue on the minds of Americans today. There is no more appropriate place to debate this issue than on the Defense authorization bill, because it is here where policy issues can and should be debated; a better place than on an appropriation bill where the message which would be sent to our troops has more to do with whether we are going to fund the troops than whether we should continue a policy in Iraq which, so far at least, is not working. So I am going to continue to be the optimist. I look forward to working with Senator McCain. I think our leaders can continue to work together to try to work on time agreements for the Iraq amendments. I hope and expect we will adopt an authorization bill this year. There is nothing unique about the Senate having healthy, vigorous debate. That is not unique. Sometimes it looks as though we are not going to be able to get something done and, lo and behold, we are able to get something done because the American people want us--Senator McCain is right--the American people want us to act. We are on the verge of acting on the single most important issue on the minds of the American people. It was an issue which, more than any other, impacted the last election. It was an issue where the Senate spoke in April, and where what we did was vetoed by the President. It is an issue where now we must face an historic decision: Is the course in Iraq working or does it need to be changed? And, if it needs to be changed, what is our responsibility in terms of bringing about that change? Those are issues we cannot duck. Those are issues we should not avoid. Those are issues which belong on our desks, and require the best possible judgment we can bring. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? I ask unanimous consent that after completion of the remarks of the Senator from Arizona, that Senator Reed of Rhode Island be recognized.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum for a brief minute. Senator Jack Reed is scheduled to be next, and he is within, I think, 30 seconds of getting here. He delayed, as a courtesy to Senator Kyl, and so I will put in that quorum call for a minute so he can get here.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my dear friend, Senator Salazar, for his comments. They are particularly meaningful coming from somebody who as much as anybody in this body strives to bring Members together in common causes. I want to tell him how grateful I am for his comments but also, even more importantly, how grateful we all are for the effort he makes to cross the aisle and bring Senators together on important issues of the day. Last night, I was not able to be present when our bill came to the floor. I was chairing a subcommittee meeting which I could not leave. I asked a number of colleagues on the Armed Services Committee if they could fill in for me, and very graciously and, as always, very competently, Senators Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson fulfilled that role and responded to that request, and I am very grateful to them for having done so. I wasn't able then to present the bill, as a bill of this magnitude should be presented, and I will take a few minutes at this time to do that. The Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 would fully fund the fiscal year 2008 budget request of $648.8 billion for national security activities of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The Senate Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of setting aside partisanship and working together in the interest of the national defense. That tradition has been maintained this year. I am pleased that our bill, S. 1547, was reported to the Senate on a unanimous 25- to-nothing vote of our committee. Additionally, S. 1606, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which we will be taking up either as part of this bill or as a freestanding measure, was also reported by the committee on a unanimous 25-to-nothing vote. These votes stand as a testament to the common commitment of all of our Members to supporting our men and women in uniform. Our bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide needed support and assistance to our troops on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the Department of Defense. The bill before us, perhaps most importantly, continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains provisions that would authorize a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay increase for all uniformed military personnel, which is a half a percent more than the administration's request. Our bill authorizes increases in the end-strength of the Army and the Marines--13,000 for the Army and 9,000 for the Marines. Our bill authorizes payment of over 25 types of bonuses and special pay aimed at encouraging the enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel. Our bill authorizes payment of combat- related special compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a combat-related disability. We reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to Department of Defense personnel by authorizing the use of Federal pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE retail program. The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops with the equipment and support they will continue to need as long as they remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. For instance, the bill contains provisions which would add $4 billion above the amount requested by the administration for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, so-called MRAPs, which improve protection for our troops exposed to improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Our bill fully funds the budget request of $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, while directing that office to invest at least $50 million in blast injury research and over $150 million for the procurement of IED jammers for the Army. We invest more than $70 million in research and new technologies to enhance the force protection of deployed units, including advanced materials for vehicle and body armor, active protection systems that shoot down incoming rocket-propelled grenades, and sniper detection systems. And we add $2.7 billion for items needed by the Army but not contained in the President's budget, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers, and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night- vision devices, and machine guns. The bill would also enhance our national security by aggressively addressing the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, the bill would increase funding over the administration's request for Department of Energy nonproliferation programs by $87 million, increase funding for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, CTR, by $100 million, eliminate funding restrictions that limit the use of CTR funds, and we expand the CTR Program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. The bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would establish a Chief Management Officer, finally, for the Department of Defense to provide continuous top-level attention to the high-risk management problems of the Department as recommended by the Comptroller General. I note that our Presiding Officer is a member of the committee which takes a particular interest in management issues, and the committee on which we both serve, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has been interested in this subject for years, as long as probably both of us, the Presiding Officer and I, have been here together. We need a chief management officer for the Department of Defense and we would establish that office. We would establish an acquisition workforce development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the size and quality of its acquisition workforce as needed to address systematic deficiencies in the Department's purchases of products and services. We would tighten the rules for Department of Defense acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components, and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements. Our bill also contains a provision that would require increased competition in large so-called ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department of Defense. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on the Department of Defense's management of the $20 billion LOGCAP contract, under which KBR--until recently a subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the field. There is a history of highly favorable treatment of that contractor throughout this contract. For example, the company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract. All of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition. There were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract, and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges. When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors so as to allow for the competition of individual task orders, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics responded: I don't have a good answer for you. The provision in our bill would avoid these kinds of abuses we get in sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. There are far too many provisions in the bill to describe all of them, but there are a few more I wish to put some focus on. Section 1023 of the bill would protect our troops, uphold our values, and help restore our image around the world by providing a fair process for reviewing the status of the Department of Defense detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. This provision would require for the first time that long-held detainees receive legal representation, provide for legal rulings to be made by military judges, and prohibit the use of coerced statements. Section 871 of the bill would require the Department of Defense to provide much-needed regulation for contractors operating on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past 4 years, contractor employees have frequently fired weapons at people and property in Iraq--including insurgents, civilians and, on occasion, even our own coalition forces. Yet we have no consistent system in place for regulating the conduct of these armed contractors, or for enforcing compliance with those regulations that do exist, that are supposed to govern the activities of our contractors we hire. The provision in our bill would ensure that commanders on the battlefield have the authority they have long needed to establish rules of engagement--as well as systems for reporting and investigating incidents involving the use of force--for armed contractors of ours in an area of combat operations. Finally, shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors came to the attention of the Nation in a series in the Washington Post last February. These articles described deplorable living conditions for some servicemembers in an outpatient status. They described a bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a servicemember would be medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and for his family. A clumsy handoff was described and exists between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs when a military member transitions from one department to another. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus. I am very proud our Armed Services Committee approved S. 1606, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors, by a unanimous 20-to-0 vote on June 14. This bill, which we worked on so closely with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, would address the issues of inconsistent application of disability standards, disparate disability ratings, substandard facilities, lack of seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the Veterans' Administration, inadequacy of severance pay, care, and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. It addresses also medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and the sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In consultation with the leadership and with the Committee on Veterans Affairs, since there is unlikely to be available floor time to bring this critically needed bill to the floor as freestanding legislation, it will be offered instead as an amendment to the bill we have on the floor now. I will be offering this on behalf of a very large bipartisan group of Senators coming from not only both the Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee but from all Senators, just about, who will be offering this amendment. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to take up and pass this important legislation. As of today, roughly 160,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are engaged in combat and combat support operations in Iraq. Almost 20,000 are engaged in combat and combat support operations in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more are supporting the war effort through deployments thousands of miles from home. While many of us believe the time has come to start bringing these troops home, we all know we must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. We in the Nation are divided on the administration's war policy, but we are united in our determination to support our troops. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a Nation, stand behind them and we appreciate their service. Finally, as I did earlier this morning, I note that this bill--a bipartisan bill--would not have been possible without the support and leadership of Senator McCain, my ranking member, and each member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We owe a special debt of gratitude to those who served as subcommittee chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee. This bill takes a long time to put together and then to mark up. It takes many months to perform those functions and many days in the markup process itself. I also give a special thank-you to our former chairman, Senator Warner, who again did yeoman service to make it possible for this bill to come to the floor in a bipartisan manner, which it has. I look forward to working with colleagues to pass this important legislation. I hope we can proceed to the prompt consideration of it, and I hope that as soon as we address the amendment of Senator Webb, we are going to be able to move on to other amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``Dirty Bomb Vulnerabilities: Fake Companies, Fake Licenses, Real Consequences.'' The Subcommittee's hearing will examine certain vulnerabilities in the Government's procedures for licensing radiological materials. This hearing builds upon the findings released at the Subcommittee's hearing on March 28, 2006, which examined certain flaws in U.S. safeguards against radiological and nuclear attacks. Specifically, the hearing will examine the effectiveness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's materials licensing policies and procedures, including: (1) The process by which parties obtain NRC materials licenses; and (2) the vulnerability of NRC materials licenses to counterfeiting. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives of the Government Accountability Office and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A final witness list will be available Tuesday, July 10, 2007. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this bipartisan substitute is nearly identical to S.487, which I introduced along with Senators Bond, Dorgan, Graham, Durbin, Mikulski, Pryor, Cardin, Isakson, Coleman, Brown, and Chambliss, and which passed the Senate on February 15, 2007. Companion legislation was introduced in the House where it was renamed in honor of our House colleague, the late Representative Charles Norwood, a longtime advocate of organ donation, who sponsored the legislation earlier this year along with Representative Jay Inslee. Our legislation, the Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, will save lives by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation through a process called paired organ donation. It addresses this relatively new procedure, which is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology. Paired organ donation, which did not exist when the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, was enacted more than two decades ago, will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that they are medically incompatible, to still become living kidney donors. The legislation is necessary because the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, which contains a prohibition intended by Congress to preclude purchasing organs, is unintentionally impeding the facilitation of matching incompatible pairs. Our legislation would simply add kidney paired donation to the list of other living-related donation exemptions that Congress originally placed in NOTA. It removes an unintended impediment to kidney paired donations by clarifying ambiguous language in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA. That section has been interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such donations. In section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ purchases,'' says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration. . . .'' This legislation does not remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line to section 301 which states that paired donations do not violate it. Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements that permit kidney paired donation be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. Some transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief that these arrangements do not violate section of 301 of NOTA, but they contend that they are doing so under a cloud. In the process of kidney paired donor transplants, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and a biologically incompatible living donor is matched with another such pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur. In other words, the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the arrangement. No Federal dollars are needed to implement this change. And, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save roughly $220,000 in dialysis costs. It is essential that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that transplant centers which have hesitated to implement incompatible living kidney donation programs can feel free to do so.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I believe the Presiding Officer would also need some time between the votes, and I believe that is not impacted by the current request; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. Between the votes or no?

Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased the long road to confirmation for three nominations for the Federal bench in the Western District of Michigan, Janet Neff, Robert Jonker, and Paul Maloney is apparently near the end of the road. Senator Stabenow and I worked with the White House on these nominations. Last year they were unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee and again this year. The confirmation of these nominees has been blocked since last November. The sticking point of the Senator who objected was that one of the nominees, Judge Neff, personally attended a same-sex commitment ceremony of a family friend who was a next-door neighbor of hers for 26 years. When Judge Neff was asked to deliver some remarks, Judge Neff felt it was similar to being asked by one of her own daughters to be part of an important event in her life. The ceremony was entirely private. It took place in Massachusetts, where Judge Neff has no official capacity. The ceremony had no legal effect. Judge Neff took no official role in the ceremony whatsoever. Her qualifications are clear. She currently serves on the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she has served for a significant period of time. Judge Neff graduated with honors from the University of Pittsburgh in 1967, then graduated from Wayne State University Law School in 1970. She has had a distinguished legal career. After law school, Judge Neff served as an estate and gift tax examiner for the Internal Revenue Service and then as a research attorney for the Michigan Court of appeals, before becoming an assistant city attorney for the city of Grand Rapids. Judge Neff has also worked in private practice, served as a commissioner for the Michigan Supreme Court and then as an assistant U.S. attorney. Judge Neff currently serves on the Michigan Court of Appeals. She has been granted numerous awards and honors, including the Outstanding Member for 2006 of the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan. We are fortunate to have the opportunity today to confirm Judge Neff, along with two other qualified nominees, Robert Jonker and Paul Maloney. I only hope now that we finally have an opportunity to confirm these three judges, that we will do so and do so overwhelmingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our immigration system is broken and needs reform. Undocumented immigrants flow through our porous borders. Employers hire them with near impunity. Our Government lacks the ability to adequately detect unauthorized employment, while employers in sectors such as agriculture, Michigan's second largest industry, fear that their crops will go unpicked for lack of legal, authorized workers. The bipartisan compromise bill before the Senate was an opportunity to make progress on a very difficult problem. The first step in immigration reform must be stronger border security. Although there were some provisions in the bill before the Senate that I did not support, this legislation had strong border security measures, even stronger than the ones we debated a few weeks ago. In fact, it contained the funding for the enhanced border security. We need a more secure, more sensible, and fairer system of immigration. Because of filibusters in the Senate we have been unable to fully consider and amend the bill. We do not know what the final language might have been, and we were unable to vote on amendments which we favored. We should have finished the consideration of those amendments to determine whether or not the final product was an improvement on the status quo. To do that, cloture was required to end the filibuster. I am disappointed that the Senate was thwarted in that endeavor.

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 now proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 165, the nomination of LTG Douglas Lute; that the time until 3 o'clock be for debate on the nomination, equally divided between myself and Senator Warner or his designee; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the nomination be laid aside and the Senate return to legislative session in morning business; and that at 4 p.m., the Senate return to executive session and the vote on confirmation of the nomination of Lieutenant General Lute. I also am hopeful that there will be some votes on judicial nominees as well today, but that has not yet been cleared.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes. I support the nomination of LTG Doug Lute to be Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. Lieutenant General Lute is an accomplished senior officer with a distinguished record and great experience in both military tactics and national security strategy and policy. Lieutenant General Lute has been serving as the Director of Operations, J-3, on the Joint Staff since September of 2006. Immediately prior to this assignment, he served for more than 2 years as the Director of Operations, J-3, at U.S. Central Command, overseeing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations in the CENTCOM area of responsibility. While I know of no concerns as to General Lute's qualifications for the position to which he has been nominated by the President, there have been some other concerns expressed about this nomination. The first concern questions the need for the position itself as well as the potential for confusion as to who is responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan policy. On the one hand, the position implies a direct and independent relationship with the President as Assistant to the President, and on the other hand, as Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, the position implies subordination to the National Security Adviser. One can argue that the responsibility for Iraq and Afghanistan policy clearly belongs to the National Security Adviser, as well as the responsibility for directly advising the President on those issues. Creating a position with ambiguous subordination to the National Security Adviser could needlessly complicate and confuse an already confused policy process. I, too, have some concerns in this regard but not to the extent that I will oppose the President's decision to create such a position. The other concern which has been expressed is that appointing an Active-Duty military officer to such a political position is a practice which should be avoided in that for the officer in question, it needlessly blurs the distinction between recommendations he might make based on unbiased professional military judgment and those based upon or colored by political considerations. In a larger sense, it is counter to the traditional American approach to civil-military relations. For the individual officer, it may also create difficulties in subsequently returning from a political position to a uniformed, apolitical, military position. I emphasize that General Lute will remain on active duty during this period. However, this would not be the first time that uniformed military officers, remaining on active duty, have served in such positions, one of the most notable examples being Colin Powell's own service as, first, the deputy National Security Adviser, and then as the National Security Adviser, and subsequent outstanding service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While I don't believe it should be the norm for a military officer to serve in these kinds of positions, I do not believe this should be a disqualifying concern in rare circumstances such as this, and therefore should not disqualify General Lute from his nominated position. I do believe, however, that General Lute has been nominated for an unenviable position. He will be responsible for bringing coherence to an incoherent policy--a policy that is still floundering after more than 4 years of war in Iraq. General Lute told the Armed Services Committee that ``the position is an advisor and coordinator, without directive authority beyond a small staff.'' He further said that the ability to move policy forward had to do more with such factors as ``Presidential direction and support, acceptance by other policy principals, broad commitment to a common cause, cultivated interpersonal relationships, personal integrity, and meaningful results.'' Secretary Rice, described as a close personal friend of the President--indeed almost a family member--was either not able to get that Presidential direction and support or not able to employ it to bring coherence to the President's policy. One must wonder how General Lute can be expected to be more successful. It is no secret that several retired four-star general officers were offered the position and turned it down. According to media reports, one reason given by one of the generals was that the administration remains fundamentally divided on how to carry out the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Retired Marine GEN Jack Sheehan, who declined to be considered for the position, said: The very fundamental issue is, they [the administration] don't know where the hell they're going. General Sheehan reportedly expressed concern that the hawks within the administration, including Vice President Cheney, remain more powerful than the pragmatists looking for an exit strategy in Iraq. This does not bode well for General Lute. It is no secret that General Lute himself questioned the so-called surge strategy for Iraq before its announcement by President Bush last January. Indeed, General Lute confirmed that doubt at his hearing. The surge is now complete, and the results are not very promising. American casualties are at some of the highest levels of the war, sectarian violence is rising again after a short reduction, and the insurgency is as active as ever, especially in the use of mass casualty-producing car bombs against Iraqi citizens and improvised explosive devices against United States and Iraqi forces. The stated principal purpose of the surge was to give space and time for the Iraqi politicians to make progress on the critically important political reconciliation benchmarks, such as implementing legislation for the equitable distribution of revenues from oil sales, de- Baathification, and constitutional amendments, that would lead to reconciliation among the three main Iraqi groups. Progress is not apparent in those critically important political reconciliation areas-- again, the stated purpose of the surge. I believe the only chance to get Iraqi politicians to stand up is when they know we are going to begin to stand down. Our soldiers risk their lives while Iraqi politicians refuse to take political risks and make the necessary compromises to promote reconciliation. Those are the compromises which everybody agrees must be made if there is going to be any hope to end the violence in Iraq. We cannot continue to have the lives of American servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political intrigue and intransigence. I hope once General Lute is confirmed, he will be willing and able to redirect Iraq policy to exert maximum pressure on Iraqi leaders to achieve political reconciliation. The beginning of that is a phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq. That is the only leverage on those leaders with any hope of success, with them finally understanding that their future is in their hands and we cannot save them from themselves. But as for today's nomination, I support the confirmation of LTG Douglas Lute to be the special assistant to the President and the Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the 6\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Virginia. If he needs additional time, I ask unanimous consent that he be given additional time, after the 6\1/2\ minutes. We will wait and see if that is the case.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, apparently I have a minute and a half remaining. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama, if he would like the time.

Mr. LEVIN. The vote will begin at 4. Under the order, there is another speaker scheduled at 3 o'clock.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be yielded 3 minutes, and then morning business start at 3:03 p.m.