Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2009.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``NATO: A Strategic Concept for Transatlantic Security.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2009, at 3 p.m., to hold a members briefing entitled ``Status Report on Iran.''

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 ``Keeping America's Families Safe: Reforming the Food Safety System'' on October 22, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 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 October 22, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Presidential Advice and Senate Consent: The Past, Present, and Future of Policy Czars.''

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 October 22, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 October 22, 2009, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

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 October 22, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with respect to the conference report accompanying H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally directed spending items has been identified in the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference report and that the required information has been available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site for more than 48 hours.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to approve this conference agreement to provide over $33 billion for a variety of energy and water infrastructure projects and programs. Michigan is surrounded by the Great Lakes, and the funding provided in this conference report to the Army Corps to maintain the navigational infrastructure and to clean up and protect the Great Lakes is especially important. Michigan also will benefit from the investments in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency programs provided in this bill that will help create a more sustainable economy while producing quality jobs. The conference report includes important funding for a wide range of energy research and technology development at the Department of Energy, including advanced vehicle technologies, hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy technologies, and biomass and biorefinery systems. This conference report also includes funding for critical areas of science including high energy and nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, and advanced scientific computing research. Research and technology development in these groundbreaking areas of energy and science will continue our nation's advancement toward greater use of technologies that will reduce our dependence on oil, reduce our carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions, and increase our reliance on our home-grown renewable resources. Federal Government support of research and development in these technology areas will also help ensure that our companies remain competitive in the global marketplace and ensure that the U.S. remains on the competitive edge of technology development and scientific discovery. I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes $12 million in funding for research and development, conceptual design and engineering for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, FRIB, to be built at Michigan State University. Inclusion of this funding in the conference report is critical to moving forward with this facility. Under the Department's current plans, engineering work would continue in fiscal year 2011, with initial design work beginning in fiscal year 2011 and continuing into fiscal year 2012. Construction of the facility would begin in fiscal year 2013. MSU has solid and well-known expertise in the field of rare isotopes and nuclear physics, with the largest nuclear physics faculty in the nation and a nuclear physics graduate program ranked number two in the U.S., second only to MIT. MSU is currently the home of the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, NSCL, which is the most advanced rare isotope accelerator in the U.S. and is the largest nuclear science facility on a university campus. FRIB is the next generation rare isotope facility and the Department of Energy's decision in December 2008 to select MSU for FRIB is an indication of the university's preeminence in this field. I am also pleased that the conference report includes funding for several important energy projects in Michigan that will advance the development of technologies including advanced batteries and energy storage systems, plug-in hybrid vehicles, solar and photovoltaic systems, wind energy, biomass, and energy efficiency. Michigan companies and universities are well-positioned to contribute to the development of these advanced technologies, offering both significant expertise in these technology areas and a highly trained workforce to carry out the manufacture and production of these technologies. About 180 million tons of goods are transported to and from Great Lakes harbors and ports each year, providing fuel to heat and cool homes and businesses, limestone and cement to build roads and buildings, iron ore to produce steel, and grain to feed our Nation and for export overseas. Throughout the Great Lakes, there are significant dredging and other operation and maintenance needs so that freighters can safely deliver these vital commodities. There is a significant backlog in the work required to maintain the Great Lakes navigational system. The Army Corps estimates there is a backlog of 17 million cubic yards of material that needs to be dredged in the Great Lakes, which is estimated to cost to about $200 million, to restore the full functionality of the navigational system. The conference report includes an additional $6 million above the administration's budget to address this dredging backlog at Michigan harbors and waterways, and attend to other operations and maintenance needs, including repair and renovation of breakwaters, improvements to locks, and disposal of dredged materials. An important element of the Great Lakes navigational system is the Soo Locks, which connects Lake Superior with Lakes Huron and Michigan. Every year, over 80 million tons of commodities pass through the Soo Locks, the bulk of which move through the Poe Lock, the larger of the two operational Soo locks. To ensure shipping is not impeded at the Soo Locks, it is important that another Poe-sized lock be built. Construction on the new lock began this past July, and it is important that this project be completed so that vital industrial and agricultural shipments are not impeded. The conference report includes about $1 million for this project, which is barely a dent in what is needed for this project; the Army Corps estimated that it could use about $100 million in fiscal year 2010 for this $500 million project. I will continue to urge the Administration to include funding for this important project in their budget, and I am glad the conference report also makes this strong recommendation. The conference report states that ``the conferees are deeply concerned that despite congressional support for the project, the support of the states in the region, and the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers recognizes the Soo Locks as the `single point of failure' that can cripple Great Lakes shipping, the administration has failed to include funding for a second large lock, either under the authority provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, or in its budget request for fiscal year 2010.'' I hope this lack of funding will be rectified in next year's budget. This bill includes important funding for several Great Lakes programs including the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program, Remedial Action Planning Technical Assistance, and the Sediment Transport Models and Sediment Management Planning program. These programs will help restore and protect the Great Lakes. I am also pleased that the bill includes over $6 million for the Corps' work to prevent the introduction of Asian carp and other invasive species into the Great Lakes. Invasive species can dramatically change the fishery and ecosystem by outcompeting native species for food and habitat. Asian carp are particularly devastating because they consume so much food and reproduce quickly. This funding will allow the Corps to operate the barrier project and begin work on a study to consider options to improve the barrier projects' efficacy. The conference report also provides authority for the Corps to take measures to prevent Asian carp from bypassing the electric dispersal barrier. This authority is needed because just recently, the Corps discovered that the Asian carp had moved upstream in the Des Plaines River, and if the Des Plaines River floods, which it does regularly, the floodwaters could carry Asian carp into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal above the dispersal barrier. It is critical that the Corps do what it can to prevent the introduction of Asian carp into the Great Lakes. The bill also provides funding for a variety of other water infrastructure and environmental restoration projects in Michigan. Funding is provided for two wastewater projects in Michigan--one in Genesee County and the other in the city of Negunee in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Improving sewer systems is important not only for public health, but also to eliminate untreated discharge into surface waters. Two Michigan flood control projects will also benefit from passage of this bill. The aging Hamilton Dam in the city of Flint will benefit from $240,000 that will enable the Army Corps to plan how to improve this dam that is in danger of failing. Flood control improvements at the Cass River in Spaulding Township are identified to receive priority funding from the Army Corps. Funding is also provided for three environmental restoration projects in Michigan. Funding of $90,000 will be used by the Army Corps to continue its partnership with the city of Lansing in the Grand River waterfront restoration project, which includes a range of projects, such as shoreline and ecosystem restoration, as well as recreational elements. I am pleased that $100,000 is included to implement the Lake St. Clair Management Plan. Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River that are part of the connecting channel in the Great Lakes and have been plagued by invasive species, pollution, urban sprawl, and sewer overflows. The funding in the bill will allow the Corps to move forward to finally implement on-the-ground restoration projects which are very much needed. This appropriations bill will help move our country towards greater energy security, advance technology to strengthen our manufacturing and international competitiveness, improve our shipping and boating infrastructure, and improve the environment, and I support its passage.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the leader would yield for a question.

Mr. LEVIN. The leader mentioned the Defense authorization bill is awaiting action by this Senate. We have a conference report. We have spent months and months and months on this bill. There are critical provisions that everyone knows about. Some of those, it can be argued, well, doesn't that require an appropriation? The answer is: Yes, technically, some of these provisions do. For instance, the pay increase requires an appropriation. But by holding up this bill--the conference report--we are holding up legislative provisions as well that are critically important that do not rely on appropriations. So I want to----

Mr. LEVIN. And I want to ask the leader, if he can bear with me for a moment. I wish to spend a couple moments talking about a few of the legislative provisions. One, to remedy the military commissions law. It has been basically thrown out by the Supreme Court. We cannot hold people in front of military commissions and try them before military commissions under the current law. We have to modify this law. We have spent months doing it. The modifications are in the Defense authorization bill. Until these modifications are signed into law by the President of the United States, we cannot have detainees tried before military commissions. We want to get equipment to Afghanistan. Many of us are focusing on strengthening the Afghan Army as a way that we can succeed in Afghanistan, to get their numbers up, to get their equipment up. But in order to get nonaccess property from Iraq to Afghanistan, we have to authorize it. That is in the bill that is now being held up because, apparently, there is an unwillingness on the part of some of the Republicans to agree to a unanimous consent agreement with a time agreement for debate. No one is trying to preempt anybody from talking. There is one other example. Unless we act, soldiers who are getting care at TRICARE facilities are going to have to pay $100 a day extra. We have to stop that from happening--to continue the provision in law to extend the limitation on charges for patients who are getting TRICARE. On and on and on. We have critically important legislative provisions, and my question to the leader is this: Am I correct in my understanding that we have offered a unanimous consent agreement, given a willingness to enter into a time agreement on how many hours of debate--and I know there are people who oppose the hate crimes provisions, for instance, in our bill. We are not trying to preempt debate. It is the opposite. We are trying to get on with the debate. So my question is: Is it true we have offered a unanimous consent agreement on the Defense authorization bill and that it has so far been rejected?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the leader, and I hope our Republican friends will reconsider their objections to letting us proceed to the Defense authorization bill, which is critically important to the country.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations: Those identified with a single bullet are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator since these names have already appeared in the Congressional Record and to save the expense of printing again: Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed Services Committee Which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration on October 8, 2009 LTG David M. Rodriguez, USA to be lieutenant general and Commander, International Security Assistance Force Joint Command (Reference No. 1067)

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may call up, on behalf of myself and Senator Coburn, amendment No. 2627.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to remember the life of an extraordinary woman. Belle Ackerman Lipman passed away at her home in Memphis, TN, on August 17, 2009, in the 100th year of her remarkable life. A beloved wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and friend, Mrs. Lipman is a model for all of us who hope to live life fully and for all the years granted us. A daughter of Romanian immigrants, Belle Ackerman was born in 1910 in Philadelphia, where her parents owned a general store. Just five blocks away from the store lived young Mark Lipman, who would become the love of Belle's life. The businessman and his young wife moved not long after their marriage to Little Rock, AR, where Mark saw new business opportunities, and then in 1958 to Memphis, TN. There, Belle Lipman became a pillar of the community. Her work in civic affairs was extensive. She was president of the Little Rock chapter of Hassadah, the worldwide Jewish women's organization, among a host of endeavors in charity, service and the arts. But it is not those remarkable accomplishments alone that made Belle Lipman such a special woman. As years passed, her zest for life, for new experience, and to learn of new cultures grew apace. A lifelong interest in travel made her one of the first American citizens to travel to China after diplomatic relations with that nation were reestablished in 1979. Her travels took her to a hot-air balloon over the plains of Kenya, the rivers of the Amazon, and the ancient cities of Peru. She rode the Orient Express at the age of 87. At 92, she crossed the Arctic Circle. At 95, she visited the mountains of Tibet and a host of other places. At her 95th birthday party, she celebrated the only way she knew how, with verve by dancing the Charleston. Belle Lipman was a model--a model of how to live life to the fullest and how a thirst for new experiences can fill a lifetime. My wife Barbara and I send our condolences to her beloved children, her son Ira and her daughter Carol, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren. We do so with the sure knowledge that the joy of Belle Lipman's life will over time ease the pain of her passing, leaving the warmest of memories to sustain family and friends.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, released an important report earlier this month detailing many of the potential dangers at gun shows. The report, ``Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody's Watching,'' was composed from an analysis of existing research as well as direct observation and photographic evidence. During a 3-year period, data was collected from 78 gun shows in 19 States. The report provides a clear illustration of a largely unregulated gun market that is ``an important source of guns used in criminal violence.'' Under the Federal Brady Act, before an individual can purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer, they must pass a background check to insure they are not legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. In 2008, 9.9 million background checks were conducted for firearm purchases, 147,000 of which were rejected. The majority of these denials were the consequence of a prior conviction or indictment. However, when an individual purchases a handgun from a private citizen, who is not a licensed gun dealer, there are no requirements to ensure that the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. Because private party transactions account for approximately 40 percent of all gun sales, current Federal background check requirements have limited affect over the overall rates of gun-related violent crime. Based on promoter listing, the report estimates that there were nearly 2,800 gun shows in the United States during 2007. Generally open to the public, they can vary in size from fewer than 100 display tables to a few thousand. Accounting for approximately one-third of sales at these shows, unlicensed vendors often seek to exploit their unregulated status. At one show, a vender advertised with a sign that read ``No background checks required; we only need to know where you live and how old you are.'' The report details that while a wide range of guns can be found at most gun shows, assault weapons, particularly civilian versions AR and AK rifles, are much more prominent than one might generally see at a licensed gun store. Semiautomatic pistols that accept the same high- capacity magazines and fire the same ammunition as AR and AK rifles are also heavily present. Even .50 caliber rifles, notorious for their extraordinary destructive capabilities, are available from some private parties. According to the report, there were more than 360,000 violent crimes involving guns, including an estimated 11,512 homicides, committed in the United States in 2007 alone. While America accounts for less than 5 percent of the world's population, we account for somewhere between 35 to 50 percent of all firearms in civilian hands. Gun shows present an ideal opportunity for gun traffickers to make unregulated purchases. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass sensible gun legislation that will help prevent such acts and help protect the safety of our communities.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by our colleagues Senators Voinovich, Landrieu, Kaufman, Brown, Stabenow, Snowe, and Leahy to introduce this concurrent resolution urging the United States Postal Service to issue a stamp commemorating the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was a pivotal war in our Nation's history. Often referred to as ``America's Second War of Independence,'' it secured our lasting independence from Great Britain, set our border with Canada, limited violence on the frontier and ensured the safety of American mariners around the world. My home State of Michigan witnessed many battles during the War, including one fought near current day Monroe, Michigan, at the River Raisin. The Battle of the River Raisin, also known as the River Raisin Massacre, proved to be one of the bloodiest battles of the war. ``Remember the Raisin'' became a rallying cry for American soldiers. Many such battles were fought throughout our young Nation; future leaders and presidents proved their mettle on the battlefield or at sea including Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, James Monroe, Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, John Quincy Adams, and others. Legendary heroes whose names are still remembered today emerged from this tumultuous time in our history such as Dolley Madison, Jean Lafitte, and Davey Crockett. It was during the bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814 that Francis Scott Key was inspired to pen the words to what became our national anthem, ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' It was also during the war that patriotic figure ``Uncle Sam'' made his first appearance. The inspiration for this figure was New York State businessman Samuel Wilson. Mr. Wilson provided beef in barrels to the army which were labeled U.S. for the U.S. These barrels were commonly said to come from Uncle Sam, a reference which still today refers to the Federal Government. Considering the significance that the War of 1812 had on our young Nation, it is fitting that the U.S. Postal Service issue a stamp commemorating the bicentennial of this pivotal time in our history.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I believe that the McCain amendment is the pending amendment. We will be offering or suggesting that a unanimous consent agreement be entered into where an amendment of mine could be voted upon side by side with the amendment, with the vote on mine occurring first, under the traditions of the Senate. We are trying to see if we can enter into a time agreement. I believe our staff is working on a unanimous consent agreement that would allow for that to happen pending the offering and acceptance of that, hopefully. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I don't know if the unanimous consent agreement has been cleared yet, so I will proceed to debate both the McCain amendment but also the amendment I will be offering as though it is currently pending, because I do expect both amendments will be voted on at the same time. First, to comment on the two statements that were just made by Senator McCain, one has to do with when did General Petraeus testify relative to the Iraq surge. This is a very critical point because indeed General Petreaus did testify relative to the Iraq surge, but he only testified after the decision was made relative to that surge by the President of the United States. The person who was the commander in Iraq at that time, while the deliberative process was underway in the White House as to whether a surge should take place, did not testify and was not asked to testify. There was no pressure placed on the President of the United States during those 3 months when he was deliberating on whether to surge troops into Iraq, to have his Iraq commander come up here and testify right in the middle of that deliberative process. There was no resolution, there was no request, there was no pressure being placed on the Bush White House to have his commander, who was then General Casey in Iraq, to come up and testify about whether additional troops should be sent to Iraq. I have no doubt as to what the response would have been by President Bush and his folks: We are in the middle of a deliberative process-- which took about 3 months. Secretary Gates has testified to this. He has spoken about this 3-month deliberative process and we have gone back and checked. It was about a 3-month deliberative process that the President then was engaged in. The first thing that happened was that President Bush announced this surge on January 10, 2007. Then and only then did Secretary Gates and General Pace, who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testify before the Armed Services Committee. And then and only then did General Petreaus testify before the committee on January 23. The commander in Iraq during those critical months--September, October, November, December of 2006--was General Casey. I think history records that he, as a matter of fact, opposed additional troops to go in to Iraq. But there was no effort made here to get General Casey to come before us and to testify as to why he was opposed to putting troops into Iraq at the same time that President Bush was considering whether to adopt a policy which would send additional troops into Iraq. We did not do that and we didn't do it for a good reason. We didn't think it was appropriate. So my first comment has to do with whether the kind of policy that we adopted relative to the President of the United States when President Bush was President, and undergoing the same kind of deliberative process as to whether additional troops should be sent into a country-- very similar to what President Obama is undergoing right now--whether the commander there now should be put in a position which we did not put General Casey in? We know what the response of the Bush White House would have been. There was no doubt as to what the response would be. While the President of the United States is thinking through whether to surge troops into Iraq, his commanding general, General Casey, was not called before us. We did not have resolutions here saying call General Casey in. Those of us who opposed additional troops going into Iraq probably had an ally in General Casey, as history has written; in opposition to sending in additional troops. But there was no effort to put pressure on President Bush by having his commander in the field come before us at a public hearing and say he was opposed to the very thing the President of the United States was considering. The commander, General Casey, was not put in that position. No commander should be put in that position while the President is hearing from the commander as part of a deliberative process on the very critical issue of whether to send troops in. So a request was made of me by a number of my colleagues to have a hearing at which General McChrystal would be called. My answer was: We should not do that at this time. There will be an appropriate time. There will be an appropriate time. The appropriate time is the same time General Petraeus was called in and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was called in, which was after the decision and not in the middle of that deliberative process. So the White House is now undertaking a rigorous review of General McChrystal's assessment of the situation and approach in Afghanistan. By the way, before I go any further on this, I read the transcript of General McChrystal on ``60 Minutes.'' I have not seen the speech in London that my good friend, Senator McCain, made reference to, but I have read the ``60 Minutes'' transcript. There was no effort to obtain from General McChrystal what his advice was relative to the resource question, the troops question, which lies before the President. I know what his response would have been had he been asked, which is, that is between him and the President. But the very purpose of the hearing which is the subject of the McCain amendment, the very purpose, is a hearing on the resources needed or recommended for Afghanistan. That is the very subject which is now under consideration by the President of the United States. So we have now a President, with his security team, including General McChrystal, who I understand was on a TV monitor yesterday with his responses--we have a President of the United States undertaking a rigorous review of General McChrystal's assessment. We have the assessment relative to the situation in Afghanistan that has already been provided and has now been made public. What is now under consideration is whether there ought to be a change in strategy from the March strategy, given the problems that have occurred in Afghanistan since the election, and given the other changes that have taken place, including in neighboring Pakistan, which has an effect on Afghanistan. According to General McChrystal himself, a policy debate is warranted. What he has said over and over again in his assessment is: Debate strategy before you debate resources. He said: Resources are going to be needed whatever the strategy is. That is General McChrystal's statement: There will be needed resources. General McChrystal: ``Additional resources are required.'' This is his assessment. But it is the second half of his sentence which is ignored too often, particularly in the media. After he said additional resources are required, without specifying what they are, that is left to this document which is now in the hands of the President, he said: Additional resources are required. But focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key takeaway-- He said from his assessment, these are his words-- is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate. Yet it is a hearing on resources that could come in the middle of a deliberative process. We are not sure whether by November 15 that deliberative process will be completed. I have every reason to believe it will be by November 15, but we do not know. So the McCain amendment has an arbitrary date, whether this deliberative process is completed by November 15 or not under this resolution--and I will be offering an alternative to this. Under this McCain resolution, he must come before appropriate committees before November 15. That is an arbitrary date, whether the deliberative process of the President of the United States is completed or not. But it is on the very subject, on the very subject that is now under consideration by the President. That subject is resources, troops. But listen to what General McChrystal says. He said: Yes, there are going to be resources needed--without specifying what they are. As far as we know, he has not, at least in the assessment that is unclassified. But then he says: New resources are not the crux. To succeed, ISAF requires a new approach with a significant magnitude of change, in addition to a proper level of resource. So it is not the crux. He says strategy is the crux. But the McCain amendment says: We want to hear from McChrystal by a specific date, whether there has been a decision on the crux of the matter or not, which is the strategy. That is not me talking, that is General McChrystal who is saying: The crux of the matter is the strategy. So now we have the White House--by the way, I am happy to interrupt my comments at any time if there is a unanimous consent agreement that has been reached. So if either the ranking member or Senator McCain knows whether we are in a situation--I would tell you so everybody can know what the proceedings are here, that at any time there is a unanimous consent agreement that can be offered, I would be happy to interrupt.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. So now General McChrystal himself talks about the value of a policy debate. Here is what he said in the article in the New York Times: He welcomes alternative proposals for how to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then he says: ``This is the right kind of process.'' He says: ``I have been given the opportunity to provide my input to the decision.'' So we have this internal deliberation going on in the White House, which I think we would all agree is a matter of supreme importance; that is, whether we put troops in harm's way, and how many, what is the strategy they are following, what is their mission. That is the most important decision I believe a President of the United States can make. It should be a deliberative decision. It is going to be a deliberative decision. This President has made it clear. There was a March strategy, but there are a number of things that have changed since March, including an election where there are significant allegations of fraud. When such an election takes place, that lowers the support of the people of Afghanistan for a strategy which involves them. They must succeed. It is the people of Afghanistan who have to succeed. It is the Army of Afghanistan that has to succeed. It is the police in Afghanistan. It is the civil administration which must succeed in Afghanistan. If there is this question about an election which then might impact the support of the people for the very policies in Afghanistan, the institutions that need to be fought for, that could change things. There are events in Pakistan. The Pakistani Government is doing a lot better relative to some of the threats they face. That can make a change. But the President of the United States is committed to reviewing what has happened since March, to see whether that strategy still applies or whether he wishes to change that strategy. It is a debate General McChrystal himself has said is warranted. There are a number of differences between the amendment which I am going to be offering and the pending amendment of Senator McCain. Madam President, I think we now have a unanimous consent agreement which has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that amendment numbers 2593, which is the Levin amendment, and 2575, which is the McCain amendment, be debated concurrently for a period of 30 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and McCain or their designees; that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the vote sequence be as the amendments are listed above; further, that once this agreement is entered, Senator Levin be recognized to call up amendment 2593; and that prior to the second vote in the sequence, there be 2 minutes, equally divided and controlled, prior to each vote, with the second vote 10 minutes in duration; and that the votes in relation to the amendments be at 2 p.m. today; provided further that following this debate, the amendments be set aside until 2 p.m.