Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I understand it means from now.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Arizona. I now call up amendment No. 2593.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I believe that the Congressional hearings, which are appropriate, should now be handled in the same way as was done when President Bush was deliberating on a surge strategy for Iraq. That is when the President has received his recommendations and has made a decision. We will, at that point, properly have administration officials come up to Congress, explain the President's decision. We will hear from our military chain of command at that time, including General McChrystal but not limited to General McChrystal. We have a Secretary of Defense whom we need to hear from. We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom we need to hear from, as well as our CENTCOM commander and our Afghanistan commander. First, we need to be clear on our strategy. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. We need to be clear on our strategy first, then address the question of the resources that are needed to be committed to that strategy. Under the amendment which I am offering, which will be voted on concurrently, or at the same time as the McCain amendment, we are going to have, if this amendment is adopted, a hearing not just on resources but on strategy and resources. We are going to have that hearing, if this amendment is adopted, at the appropriate time, not with an arbitrary deadline, which sets a very bad premise. I believe in this circumstance, similar to the Bush Iraq surge circumstance, where the President of the United States, be it President Bush or President Obama, has before him and is considering, in a very deliberative way, this kind of a life-and-death decision. Under the Levin amendment, there will be a hearing without an arbitrary deadline, but the hearing will take place and could take place long before November 15. The hearing under my amendment will take place promptly after the decision is made by the President. There is another difference between the two amendments. In addition to the Levin amendment including a hearing on strategy as well as resources, again, General McChrystal says the strategy is the crux of the matter, not just resources. So under the Levin amendment, the hearing will look at both the decision on strategy as well as on resources. Secondly, under the Levin amendment, the testimony will come after the decision of President Obama, just the way we had hearings after the decision by President Bush. Third, the hearings will include testimony not only from the Central Command commander and from General McChrystal, our Afghanistan commander, and the Ambassador to Afghanistan, under the Levin amendment the hearing will also take testimony from senior civilian officials and military officials not included in the McCain amendment, including the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Ambassador to Pakistan. That is the third difference between the two amendments which we will be voting on at 2 o'clock. Finally, in addition to outlining those three critical differences between the two amendments, I want to read from a letter received yesterday--or this morning from Secretary Gates by the majority leader. I am writing in response to your request for an update on the . . . strategy and resource assessments prepared by General Stanley McChrystal. He goes through a number of paragraphs describing pretty much what we all know, including that General McChrystal's initial assessment, which has been available to us, ``will serve as the prime focus'' of the review the President has undertaken, ``although other options and perspectives will also be included.'' So in addition to General McChrystal's initial assessment, he will also be looking at other options and considering other perspectives. Then Secretary Gates says the following in this letter to the majority leader: The decisions that the President faces may be some of the most important on Afghanistan in his presidency, so it behooves us to take the necessary time to make sure we get this right. That said, there are a number of internal meetings scheduled over the next few weeks on this topic. I do not expect decisions on the overall strategy--or the resources necessary to carry it out--to take an extended period of time. He concludes as follows: Until the President makes his decision on the way forward in Afghanistan, it would be inappropriate for me--or our military commanders--to openly discuss the advice being provided or the nature of the discussions being carried out with the President. However, once the President acts, I will be happy to testify before the appropriate committees of the Congress and to facilitate similar testimony by commanders and other senior Department leaders. I believe that is the right approach. It is the approach we took when President Bush was considering for 3 months whether to surge troops in Iraq. We did not try to bring his Iraq commander before the Congress for public hearings, a commander who history has indicated--at least it was fairly clear at the time--had a very different perspective than his Commander in Chief. We did not put him in that position. We didn't do that to the President of the United States, to have his commander in the field come before us and say what his opinions were that he was giving to the President at that time. We should not do that now. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes. It is clear that a number of things are happening. One is, there is a deliberative process going on. There is not much doubt that the clock is ticking. That is clear. The question is--and this is what General McChrystal says--get your strategy straight. Take the time to get your strategy straight. He also recommends that there will be new resources, whatever the strategy. But he says the key here--these are his words-- take the time to get your strategy right. We can either spend the time that the President deserves and President Bush took to get the strategy right or we will be jeopardizing the lives of the men and women who put on the uniform of the United States, if there is a wrong strategy in place. The clock was ticking in Iraq. Back in September 2006, there was a recommendation that there be a change in strategy in Iraq, that there be a surge of troops. The recommendation was made by General Keane in September 2006, start a surge. For over 3 months, while the clock was ticking, President Bush considered whether to change the strategy in Iraq. He finally changed it in January of 2007, taking 3 or 4 months to make that decision. Do you know what. He got the strategy right, finally, in January of 2007, because the surge had a positive effect. But he took the time to make a decision. We did not put pressure on him by calling a commander from the field, who apparently had a very different perspective, for hearings during that process. We respected that process. We did not try to put pressure on a President of the United States by calling the commander, General Casey, in to tell us: No, we do not need more troops, which is apparently what he would have told us, while the President of the United States was considering whether to send additional troops. The analogy is incredibly close to what is going on now. We should be treating the President of the United States, President Obama, with the same respect for the deliberative process that we provided to President Bush. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which was sent by Secretary Gates to the majority leader, Senator Reid, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the stakes here are truly huge. We obviously share one goal; that is, to succeed in Afghanistan. What General McChrystal has pointed out repeatedly in his assessment is that the way to succeed is not just with resources. He says the crux of the matter is to get a new strategy. His words: get a new strategy. The question is, are we going to allow this President the same opportunity to put a strategy in place or to change it, as President Bush did in Iraq, as we have afforded to other Presidents, including President Bush? The right strategy here is key, as well as the resources. And to set an artificial date is a terrible precedent. To put a commander in the field at a public hearing to try to pressure a Commander in Chief to reach a certain result is unacceptable, inappropriate. The Secretary of Defense is not going to allow it, nor should he, and we are not going to ask it, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I hope the Senate does not ask for that to happen either. We did not do that to President Bush. We should not do that to President Obama. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield my remaining 2 minutes to Senator Kaufman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 additional seconds.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator McCain for his warm comments. I feel very strongly about our relationship. It is a great relationship. It could not be possibly affected by differences over policies. I have great respect for the Senator and the huge contributions he makes to this body and to the Nation.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while the majority leader is on the Senate floor and talking so eloquently about the inadequacy of health insurance and specific examples, one of the statistics--and I know it is just a statistic, not a specific example--which has moved me so dramatically in the direction the majority leader described is, if I understand this correctly, the majority of people in this country go into personal bankruptcy because they cannot pay their health care costs. That is bad enough; nobody should go bankrupt because they cannot pay for health care. That is unacceptable in this country. But what compounds that is that a majority of them do have health insurance. The American people focus on that statistic, and I know statistics are difficult to put our arms around. But the majority of people who go bankrupt because of not being able to pay health care bills have health insurance. This isn't just a matter of trying to get people covered who are not covered; it is a matter of also trying to fill in for the inadequacy of the uncertainty that exists, the instability that exists for people to have health insurance.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the leader. We are not going to be able to get to the needed health care reform without his leadership. He also pointed out a particular circumstance that a number of our States are in. I am grateful for this situation. In Michigan, we are losing 27,000 jobs a month. I believe we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, which is 15.2 percent. It is growing, and it will continue to grow, apparently. People are losing their health care. The number of people eligible for Medicaid is increasing. The bill before the Finance Committee has a provision in it that we will have more people eligible for Medicaid. That is critically important. That is one way to get more people eligible for health care. But what the Finance Committee does in its current mark is also say that certain States--including Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Michigan--are suffering particularly, and in particular ways, and we are a long way from economic recovery. So the additional Medicaid support for those States is highly appropriate. There are reasons for that. The majority leader talks about the flooding in Georgia or the disaster we had in Louisiana a few years ago or the fires in California. We have an economic fire taking place in my home State of Michigan. I thank the majority leader for his willingness not just to grapple with the entire issue of health care reform but to also recognize not just the situation in his own State, with all the foreclosures they have been facing, but the situation we face in a number of other States economically. We are very grateful.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are two amendments that we will be voting on next to each other, side by side, relating to the appearance of not only General McChrystal but, if my amendment is passed, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander in CENTCOM and General McChrystal, both. That was the approach we used when President Bush, for 3 months, had under consideration an Iraqi surge. Nobody tried to have a hearing at that time to bring in his commander while the President was deliberating to give us the commander's views that he was sharing with his Commander in Chief. As a matter of fact, that commander, General Casey, had views which ran very contrary to his Commander in Chief. But we should follow that same pattern here. We should allow this deliberative process to take place. We should not try to intrude upon it or to put the commander in the field in a position where he is testifying in public relative to what he is advising his Commander in Chief.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much oppose the amendment. Secretary Gates opposes it. It would be totally inappropriate, in the middle of a deliberative process, to pit a commander of our troops in the field against the Commander in Chief. We did not do this when President Bush was President and General Casey was the commander. Apparently, he had very different views about the surge. Three months went by while President Bush deliberated on whether to surge troops. We never put General Casey at a hearing to tell us what he was advising President Bush, asking why we heard he might be advising a very different course of action. We never did that to President Bush. We should extend the same courtesy to President Obama during this deliberative process. There are good reasons why Secretary Gates opposes bringing his commander in front of a public hearing at this time. We should show the same respect for the President of the United States now as we did when President Bush was President.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, currently the Nation's unemployment rate is higher than it has been since 1983. In my home State of Michigan, the unemployment rate is 15.2 percent--5.5 percent higher than the Nation's unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. Translated into real people, this means that 14.9 million Americans are unemployed, of which, more than 735,000 are living in my home State. Michigan provides a little more than 450,000 individuals with unemployment benefits. As of September 18, more than 26,000 Michiganders have exhausted much needed unemployment benefits and by the end of this year, this number will rise to more than 100,000 folks. Since the beginning of this year, Michigan has been losing on average of 27,000 jobs per month. Our people need help. It is critical that we provide assistance to individuals who are straining to make ends meet by ensuring that their much needed unemployment insurance benefits do not run out. We need to provide support to those individuals who are struggling to find jobs so that they do not lose their homes and are able to put food on the table. We must extend unemployment insurance benefits and swiftly pass an unemployment insurance extension, so the President can sign this bill into law quickly.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is debating a short-term extension of the surface transportation bill SAFETEA-LU. With the fiscal year ending at midnight tonight this is an urgent matter. We cannot afford to let Federal highway programs authorizations expire. It would be a disaster if transportation projects across the nation were halted because we failed to extend their authority. Congress needs to rewrite the surface transportation bill, but that will take some time. This short-term extension allows the program authority to continue until a longer reauthorization bill can be passed. Importantly, the Senate bill includes language to repeal the 2009 rescission contained in the SAFETEA-LU bill that required that on September 30, 2009--today--$8.7 billion of apportioned contract authority provided to states for investment in infrastructure be rescinded. This rescission could require states to de-obligate projects in order to free up the rescinded contract authority if they don't have contract authority balances. This is critical to Michigan and all the other States across the Nation that cannot afford to have Federal infrastructure funding cut at a time of severe budget constraints. The rescission repeal language would ensure that Michigan and other States do not lose these needed Federal transportation funds. Michigan's share of the rescission is estimated to exceed $260 million or roughly 25 percent of its fiscal year 2009 apportionments. Congress has been strong in its support for transportation infrastructure funding as a way to create jobs and jump start an economic recovery during the severe economic downturn. For instance, Congress provided $27 billion for highway projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Congress also recently provided an additional $7 billion to the highway trust fund in order to keep it solvent on top of the $8 billion that it added to the trust fund last year. It would make no sense to undermine the recovery efforts and jeopardize the health of our surface transportation system by allowing an $8.7 billion cut in highway funding to go through tonight. Time is of the essence in restoring these needed transportation funds to every State in the Nation. I hope this important legislation will be adopted immediately by the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a pillar of my community, Detroit businessman and philanthropist Frank D. Stella. Born in Pennsylvania, the son of Italian immigrants, he founded the F.D. Stella Products Company in Detroit in 1946, shortly after he returned from military service during World War II. Frank has built the company into a nationwide network of food-service suppliers, forming the backbone of his business and civic involvement in Michigan. And that involvement is extensive. From business to health care to the arts to charity work, there is little that happens in Detroit that doesn't involve Frank Stella in some way. Frank has long been active in the city's most important business groups, including the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce and Detroit Economic Club. A patron of the arts, he has served on governing boards for the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Michigan Opera Theatre, and Detroit Discovery Museum. He has demonstrated a longtime commitment to health care, serving on the boards of the Detroit Medical Center, Mount Carmel Mercy Hospital, Sacred Heart Rehabilitation Center, and Grace Hospital of Detroit. Education has been another focus: He has served on the boards of the University of Detroit-Mercy, his alma mater, as well as the Wayne County Community College Foundation. The breadth and depth of his accomplishments and involvement has drawn the notice of many. Organizations as diverse as the Detroit Urban League, the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, and the American Institute of Architects have honored him for his contributions. In 1995, he received an Ellis Island Medal of Honor, an award recognizing the importance of the immigrant experience in American life. The Italian Government has bestowed numerous awards upon him, as have four U.S. Presidents. His support of his Roman Catholic faith has earned the thanks of popes. On Oct. 30, many of Frank's friends will gather to honor his 90th birthday. Fittingly, the celebration will serve as a fundraiser for four more of Frank's causes: the National Italian American Foundation Scholarship Fund, Orders of the Sons of Italy in America, Italian Language Inter-Cultural Alliance, and Boys' Town of Italy. I thank him for his years of service to our city and State and wish him continued health and success in his many community endeavors.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment that would strike the $2.5 billion in additional funding for C-17 aircraft in the committee-reported bill and restore serious cuts that were made in the readiness accounts, in part to shift funds to support continued C-17 production. Terminating production, like closing a base, can involve some economic loss for the communities involved. It involves pain--we understand that--up close and personal. But we must do so from time to time and make these difficult decisions. We have to do that for what is best for the Nation and for the men and women in the Armed Forces because, as Secretary Gates said in a letter to me today expressing support for ending C-17 production: The Department does not need additional C-17s to meet strategic needs. First, I want to agree with Chairman Inouye that the C-17 is a fine aircraft. I have been a strong supporter of the C-17 program, even when it was having growing pains early in the program. If we did not already have a C-17 aircraft fleet, we would have to create one. But this is not a question of whether we should buy the C-17. We have bought them, for a total of 213 aircraft. It is a question of ``How many C-17s do we need?'' On that very point, I wrote a letter to the current Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Schwartz, who was then commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, on November 6, 2007. I had asked for his professional opinion as to whether we needed C-17 aircraft beyond the 190 C-17 aircraft the Air Force had already bought, and he gave us his personal and professional opinion. He said: Since you asked for my personal and professional opinion, I believe that 205 C-17s and 111 C-5s is the correct fleet mix for the future. He explained how he reached that opinion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to General Schwartz and his letter to me be printed in the Record, and also a letter I received from Secretary Gates be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for those members of the Senate not familiar with the phrase ``personal and professional opinion,'' let me explain. In the Armed Services Committee, we require that military officers, appointed to senior positions such as the Transportation Command position, affirm that, when asked for their personal and professional opinion on any matter, they are obliged to give their own opinion, whether that opinion agrees with that of the Secretary of Defense, the President, or anyone else in the executive branch. General Schwartz replied to my letter on November 6, 2007: Since you asked for my personal and professional opinion, I believe that 205 C-17s and 111 C-5s is the correct fleet mix for the future. I reach that opinion by combining the analysis of available million-tonmiles per day (MTM/D) capability, fleet mission capable rates, the annual flying hour program, average cost per flying hour, total number of organic aircraft tails, available pallet capacity. And average age of the fleet. Taking these factors together, I personally conclude 201/111 is the sweet spot. It is clear from his letter that General Schwartz and the members of TRANSCOM had given serious thought to the question of how many C-17s we should have. More recently, in the fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Act, we required that the Department conduct a Study on Size and Mix of Airlift Force. That study was conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses, IDA, and was completed in February, 2009. Among the questions that the study answered were the following: What are the cost and other implications for stopping production of the C-17 line and then restarting it later, if needed? Our assessment of the C-17 line shutdown and restart is that continued production, even at low rates, is expensive relative to restart costs. Moreover, under the scenarios and other assumptions considered in this study, additional C-17s were not needed to meet the MCS (Mobility Capability Study) moderate-acceptable-risk delivery rates used as a benchmark by the analyses conducted here. We also found that retiring C-5As to release funds to buy and operate more C-17s is not cost-effective. Mr. President, the time has come to stop C-17 production at 213 C-17 aircraft. That is all we need to buy, that is all we can afford to buy, and that is all we should buy. The money that would be freed up by the McCain amendment would be transferred to the operation and maintenance, O&M, accounts. The bill cut roughly $2.4 billion from the budget request. I fear that this overall reduction could force the Department to make serious reductions in O&M activities, if not, in fact, forcing the Department to ask for another supplemental funding request. We should do all we can to avoid that possibility.

Mr. LEVIN

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