Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection after the Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

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

Mr. LEVIN. First, on the question of whether this is a filibuster, under our rules Senators have a right to speak and debate as long as they want until 60 Senators decide it is time to end debate. That is the definition, under our rules, of a filibuster. And that is the right of Senators to engage in. That is not the issue, as to whether it is right; the issue is whether it is now time to end debate. Under our rules, in order to bring debate to an end, where Senators insist on continuing a debate unless 60 Senators vote to end it, this is what this vote will be about at noon--whether we want to bring this debate to an end. Why? Well, first of all, we need a Secretary of Defense. But before we can get a Secretary of Defense, there has to be a vote on the nomination itself. The vote at noon will be a vote as to whether we want to bring this debate to an end so that we can, at a later time-- hopefully today--then vote on the nomination itself. That is a majority vote, not 60 votes. In fact, the final vote on either a nominee or on a bill is always a majority vote. The 60 votes comes into play when Senators say: We are not going to end debate. We have a right to talk as long as we want in the Senate until 60 Senators vote to end it. And we demand that vote of 60 Senators takes place to see if there are 60 Senators who want to end debate. That is called cloture. That is what we will be voting on at noon. That is the very definition of a filibuster, under our rules. So it is not unusual, as the Senator from Oklahoma says, for there to be a demand for a cloture vote on positions in the Cabinet. That has happened before. But what has never happened is that that has been insisted upon for a nomination to be Secretary of Defense. That is what is unusual. It seems to me it is essential now that we get to the vote on the nomination itself, which will come later on today--again, I hope--and the only way to do that is if we vote to end the debate on this nomination, which is what will take place at noon. Whether there will be 60 votes, we will find out at noon, but hopefully there will be because this is a position which needs to be filled. There have been many misstatements about quotes of Senator Hagel. Obviously, not all of the statements that have been attributed to him are misstatements, but some of them are. Just one of them we heard earlier this morning was about the fact that he has talked about the sickening slaughter by the Israelis in the case of Lebanon. So here is the quote, and it was a full speech. It was on C-SPAN. The quote is--and this involves the issue of Lebanon--``The sickening slaughter on both sides must end.'' So what Senator Hagel was bemoaning was the loss of lives on both sides. I would hope that decent people everywhere would bemoan the massive loss of lives on both sides that occurred during those events in Lebanon. I was there, and I saw what happened-- the huge loss of life. So he was bemoaning the sickening slaughter on both sides and saying it must end and calling on President Bush to call for an immediate cease-fire. I find nothing reprehensible about such a call. This has been a debate which has raised a lot of issues, but, to me, some of the most compelling arguments have been made by former Secretaries of Defense and State urging that we approve and confirm Senator Hagel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support to which I will refer. At an earlier time, they were made part of the Record, but it is important that they be made a part of the Record of today's debate and not just previous debates.

Mr. LEVIN. The first letter is a letter of 11 Ambassadors, including four former Ambassadors to Israel, in which these Ambassadors say that Senator Hagel ``has always supported the pillars of American foreign policy--such as a strong NATO and Atlantic partnership; a commitment to the security of Israel, as a friend and ally . . . '' The second letter is from 13 former Secretaries of Defense, State, and National Security Advisers, including a number of Republicans who served in Republican administrations. Part of their letter reads as follows: His approach to national security and debates about the use of American power is marked by a disciplined habit of thoughtfulness that is sorely needed. It also says: Our extensive experience working with Senator Hagel over the years has left us confident that he has the necessary background to succeed in the job of leading the Department of Defense. These, again, are 13 former Secretaries of Defense. Then there is a series of letters that came in from veterans organizations. These are elegant pleas for Senator Hagel to be confirmed. This is from the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States: Senator Hagel has championed personnel issues relating to combat dwell time, force protection, transition issues including electronic medical issues, preparation for future employment and training . . . He also recognizes the value and sacrifice of families of the men and women who serve in this Nation's Uniformed Services. This is from AMVETS: AMVETS fully supports President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for the future Secretary of Defense. As a veterans service organization, AMVETS' main mission is to serve as an advocate for veterans, their families and the community in which they live. I am confident that former Senator Hagel will utilize his experience and understanding of America's military to lead this nation's troops and the Department of Defense. In terms of Israel and in terms of Iran, I wish to read a couple of statements of Senator Hagel and about Senator Hagel--first in terms of his statements about Iran. In his 2008 book, he said: At its core, there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel, exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel's defense. And this is a statement made by an Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister whose name is Danny Ayalon. This is what he said just recently: Senator Hagel believes in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States. Senator Hagel is proud of the volume of defense relations between Israel and the United States, which are so important for both countries. Hagel is a true American Patriot and the support America gives Israel is in America's interest, so I am optimistic. Relative to Iran, this is what Senator Hagel has said about Iran: Iran poses a significant threat to the United States, our allies and partners, and our interests in the region and globally. Iran continues to pursue an illicit nuclear program that threatens to provoke a regional arms race and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Iran is one of the main state sponsors of terrorism and could spark conflict, including against U.S. personnel and interests. He has also said that he is ``fully committed to President Obama's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,'' and he has said that ``all options must be on the table to achieve that goal.'' He specifically said that his policy will be that of the President's policy--one of prevention and not containment. Relative to sequestration--and we are facing sequestration--Senator Hagel has said the following, which is also what Secretary Panetta has said. Sequestration, if allowed to occur, would damage our readiness, our people and our military families. It would result in the grounding of aircraft and returning ships to port, reducing the Department's global presence and ability to rapidly respond to contingencies. Vital training would be reduced by half of current plans and the Department would be unable to reset equipment from Afghanistan in a timely manner. The Department would reduce training and maintenance for nondeploying units and would be forced to reduce procurement of vital weapon systems and suffer the subsequent schedule delays and price increases. Civilian employees would be furloughed. All these effects negatively impact long-term readiness as well. It would send a terrible signal to our military and our civilian workforce, to those we hope to recruit, and to both our allies and adversaries around the world. Mr. President, we must end this uncertainty about this position. It is time for us to end this debate, and that is what we will be voting on now. Later on there will be a vote on whether to confirm Senator Hagel. The vote now is whether to bring this debate to an end. I hope we will do so and get on to the nomination vote. I yield the floor, as I think it is noon and time for a vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is the remainder of the time reserved for the Hagel nomination or is it just open?

Mr. LEVIN. And the vote is to take place at 4:30?

Mr. LEVIN. Before Senator Sanders leaves, let me commend him. I didn't hear all his remarks, but I know the subject of his address, his remarks, was the fact corporations now contribute about 10 percent of the total revenue which comes into Uncle Sam. Years ago, it was about 50 percent, and then gradually it has come down to about where it is now. The reason for that, mainly, is that there are a whole bunch of gimmicks and loopholes which have been inserted into our tax laws which need to be closed. If they can be closed, we would be able to avoid sequestration. That is how big the loopholes are. I am not talking about deductions, which most people would say serve a useful purpose. Whether people agree with that purpose, at least deductions, as we generally understand deductions, serve some kind of a productive purpose. For instance, corporations get accelerated depreciation when they buy equipment. That serves a very important purpose. It gives an incentive to buy equipment. Even the oil and gas credit, which I don't support, nonetheless, the purpose of it is to give an incentive to explore and drill for oil and gas. Whether one agrees with that purpose, at least it is a purpose. When it comes to these loopholes and gimmicks which are used to shift revenues to tax havens, there is no useful purpose. The only purpose is taxable. Those are the loopholes which we can close, and those are the loopholes which it seems to me there ought to be broad bipartisan support to close. If we can close them, we can avoid sequestration. Again, that is how big these loopholes are. I very much appreciate the reference by the Senator from Vermont to our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the work we have been doing, and I very much appreciate the energy he brings to this effort. It ought to be bipartisan. Again, these kinds of loopholes are not what most people consider to be legitimate deductions but are a kind of tax- avoidance scheme that should not be in the law even if we had no deficit. I guess one of the critical differences between these kinds of tax-avoidance gimmicks and the ordinary deductions corporations take is the fact that the use of these and the abuse of these should be eliminated on a bipartisan basis. So I would like to thank my friend. I wish I had caught the early part of his remarks, but that was not to be.

Mr. LEVIN. And the time is evenly divided?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Armed Services.

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 Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013, at 11:50 a.m. in room S-219 of the Capitol.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``State Leadership and Innovation in Disability Employment'' on February 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013, at 3:45 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 3 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 26, 2013.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013. The Committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building at 2 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider H. Con. Res. 15, which was received earlier today.