Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

I understand it means from now.

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

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

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.

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. President, how much time remains?

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.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

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

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies a very important program in my State. The Environmental Protection Agency's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, leads EPA's Clean Automotive Technology Program by facilitating collaboration with the automotive industry through innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution emissions, increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases.

One of the programs that has been developed collaboratively through the Ann Arbor laboratory and its industry partners is the hydraulic hybrid technology which has come out of the laboratory's focus areas in hydraulic hybrid research, engine research, alternative fuels research and technical and analytical support. This technology offers potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.

The President's fiscal year 2010 budget increases the Climate Protection Program line in EPA's budget, which includes this facility, and I appreciate the subcommittee's concurrence with the request in the bill before the Senate.

It is my understanding that the version of the bill adopted by the House of Representatives provides an additional $1.6 million over the fiscal year 2010 budget request. Is that also the understanding of the Senator from California?

I hope to provide additional funding for this program in order to fund a demonstration program to deploy hybrid hydraulic technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as school buses. Demonstration of this hybrid hydraulic technology, through its incorporation into a fleet of school buses, would not only bring these fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies closer to wide-scale viability and acceptance but also provide EPA with important data to support its work in developing achievable standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.

As the conference committee considers the differences between the House and Senate bills, I am hopeful that the additional $1.6 million included in the House bill will be maintained and that serious consideration will be given to directing this funding to demonstration of the hybrid hydraulic technology I have described.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

New York's Northeastern States Research Cooperative Funding

Mr. President, I will vote for this bill to provide $32 billion in funding for a variety of important environmental and infrastructure purposes. This bill would provide clean drinking water, prevent pollution from contaminating our precious natural resources, clean up hazardous waste sites, protect lands for habitat preservation and recreation, improve vehicle efficiency, and help restore the Great Lakes.

I am pleased this bill includes $400 million for Great Lakes restoration and protection efforts through a new effort called the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI. The GLRI is a multiagency effort to address the array of current and historic threats facing the Great Lakes including invasive aquatic species, nonpoint source pollution, and contaminated sediment.

While I appreciate the significant investment in the Great Lakes, I have encouraged the bill managers to provide the full funding requested for the GLRI. The President requested $475 million for the GLRI, and the Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a spending plan for the full funding. Full funding is needed now and would be well spent.

A 2003 GAO report on Great Lakes federal restoration programs stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, scientists report that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and changes to how water flows. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.''

The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We must recognize that we are only their temporary stewards. If Congress does not act to keep pace with the needs of the lakes, and the tens of millions of Americans dependent upon them and affected by their condition, the problems will continue

to build and we may start to undo some of the important work that has already been done and is underway. We must be good stewards by providing the resources that the Federal Government needs to meet its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This bill will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Importantly, the bill would provide $1.4 billion to capitalize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $2.1 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for wastewater projects. The funding in the Senate bill more than doubles the amount provided in the fiscal year 2009 bill. I had urged appropriators to provide this increase because Michigan's water infrastructure needs are sizable. Michigan would receive about $41 million for drinking water and $88 million for wastewater projects, protecting public health, improving the environment, and creating a stronger economic climate.

I am also pleased this bill provides $2.7 billion for our National Park Service, an increase of $200 million from last year's level, which I supported. Michigan has six national park units, and this funding would help ensure these resources are adequately maintained and protected. The national parks have been struggling for years with inadequate funding and large maintenance and construction backlogs. This funding would help meet these needs so that our Nation's natural and cultural heritage is preserved. Over a million people visited Michigan's national parks last year, and it is important that visitors find our parks in good condition and that we do the same for future generations.

I am pleased to see this bill includes the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Protection Program, which includes the Clean Automotive Technology Program. EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, MI, leads the Clean Automotive Technology Program by facilitating collaboration with the automotive industry through innovative research to achieve ultra low-pollution emissions, increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases. An example of the work done collaboratively through this program at the Ann Arbor laboratory with its industry partners is development of hydraulic hybrid technology that offers potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent. The House bill includes an additional $1.6 million for the Climate Protection Program, and I am hopeful this additional funding will be maintained in conference and that serious consideration will be given to directing this funding to deployment of hybrid hydraulic technology in larger fleet vehicles, such as schoolbuses.

Mr. President, this appropriations bill would protect our natural resources and the Great Lakes in particular, provide communities with safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases, and protect and improve public lands and parks, and I support its passage.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record 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. President, today I pay tribute to the man whose voice was the sound of summer, to the man who guided Michiganders through baseball seasons for more than 40 years. I rise in tribute to Ernie Harwell.

For those who love baseball and the Detroit Tigers, Ernie Harwell's easy Georgia drawl on a summer evening has been a tonic after a hard day's toil. He has been our eyes and ears at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull and, later, at the team's new downtown ballpark. Since 1960, when Ernie broadcast his first Tigers game, until today, perhaps no person, no player nor manager, has been more closely identified with Tigers baseball. Certainly none has formed so strong an emotional tie with the fans of our team.

Ernie grew up in Atlanta, and he often tells fans that as a boy he was tongue-tied, coping with a speech impediment, but with therapy and hard work, he turned his voice into a tool so powerful it brought the game to life. His first broadcasting job was with the minor league team in his hometown, but in 1948, when broadcasting legend Red Barber of the Brooklyn Dodgers fell ill, Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey called down to Atlanta. He asked if he could bring up young Ernie to fill Barber's seat at Ebbets Field. OK, the Atlanta general manager replied, but you will have to give me something in return. And so Ernie became the first and so far only broadcaster in baseball history to be included in a trade, sent to Brooklyn for a minor league catcher.

That was one of Branch Rickey's finest deals. In Brooklyn and then in Baltimore, Ernie honed his craft and won

the admiration of fans. He was the television broadcaster for one of the most famous moments in baseball history, Bobby Thompson's ``Shot Heard Round the World'' in 1951. The national networks began to tap his talent for other events, such as pro and college football games and the Masters golf tournament.

And then, in 1960, he came to Detroit.

It is hard to describe to those who aren't from Michigan or fans of the Tigers just what Ernie Harwell meant to us over the next five decades. His voice on the radio guided us through good seasons and bad, through our city's times of prosperity and of tragedy. Through that ebb and flow he was a constant, his voice never too excited, never too downcast. We rejoiced when he told us an opposing batter took strike three ``like the house by the side of the road,'' chuckled as he reported a foul ball had become a souvenir for a fan from Detroit or Howell or Warren or Lansing, or another town Michigan fans recognized. In the first days of every March, at the opening of his very first broadcast of spring training, Ernie announced the official end of Michigan winter with a reading from the Song of Solomon:

``For lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land.''

But over the decades, Ernie became more to us than just a welcome voice on the radio. He became a friend. For as good as he was behind the microphone, he is an even better man, and the quality of his character shone brightly, on his broadcasts and on the countless times he greeted fans with a hearty hello, or treated a clubhouse attendant with the same respect and affection as the million-dollar ballplayer. We came to respect and honor his voice, but to cherish his great heart.

This beloved friend is hurting now. His illness, he tells us without a trace of bitterness, will soon take him from us. But as he faces what he calls the end of his journey, the greatness of his heart has once again shined forth.

Last night, the Tigers took a break from the heat of another pennant race to pay tribute to this legend and friend. Amid the cheers and tears, Ernie once again put the fans first. Here is what he said:

``In my almost 92 years on this earth, the good Lord has blessed me with a great journey, and the blessed part of that journey is it's going to end here in the great state of Michigan.

``I deeply appreciate the great people of Michigan. I love their grit. I love the way they face life. I love the family values they have. And you Tiger fans are the greatest fans of all. No question about that.''

There is an example of true courage and grace for all of us to try to follow.

Soon, this great voice will be silenced, a great heart stilled. But Ernie Harwell's love of the game, his humanity, his courage, will remain with us always. I treasure the moments I have spent with him. I thank him for the hours of joy he has given me, my wife and children, and the people of Michigan. I wish him and his beloved wife Lulu all the joy they deserve.

Mr. President, I wish today to remember the life of an extraordinary woman.

Belle Ackerman Lipman passed away at her home in Memphis, TN, on Aug. 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, including service as a trustee with the Simon Wiesenthal Center. She was president of the Little Rock chapter of Hadassah, 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.

I would like to express my support for the proposed resolution which I believe will enable both of our committees to fulfill their responsibilities for ensuring that the nominations to head these important intelligence elements within the Department of Defense are thoroughly considered. I thank my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, our ranking member, Senator McCain, and our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee for reaching this agreement.

Exhibit 1

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

Mr. President, today we mark a solemn anniversary. Eight years ago this morning, our Nation was attacked by terrorist extremists motivated by hatred and bent on destruction. It is always appropriate to reflect on the shock of that day, the innocent lives lost, and the efforts our Nation has made since that day to ensure that Afghanistan, the nation that hosted those terrorists, cannot again become a safe haven for terrorists seeking to attack us. But today is an especially appropriate occasion to take stock of those efforts and consider how best to continue them.

I recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan where I was joined by my colleagues, Senators Jack Reed and Ted Kaufman. The situation in Afghanistan is serious. Security has deteriorated. But if we take the right steps, we can ensure Afghanistan does not revert to a Taliban- friendly government that can once again provide a safe haven for al- Qaida to terrorize us and the world.

The Obama administration's new strategy focusing on securing the Afghan population's safety and partnering with the Afghan security forces in that effort is an important start in reversing the situation in Afghanistan. The change in strategy has led our forces, in the words of General McChrystal's Counterinsurgency Guidance, to:

. . . live, eat and train together [with the Afghan

security forces], plan and operate together, depend on one

another, and hold each other accountable . . . and treat them

as equal partners in success.

The general's guidance goes on to say that the success of the Afghan security forces ``is our goal.''

To achieve that goal, we should increase and accelerate our efforts to support the Afghan security forces in their efforts to become self- sufficient in delivering security to their nation before we consider whether to increase U.S. combat forces above the levels already planned for the next few months. These steps include increasing the size of the Afghan Army and police much faster than presently planned; providing more trainers for the Afghan Army and police than presently planned; providing them with more equipment than presently planned; and working to separate local Taliban fighters from their leaders and attract them to the side of the government, as we did in Iraq.

While the security situation in Afghanistan has worsened, we still have important advantages there. The Afghan people hate the Taliban. Public opinion polls there show support for the Taliban at about 5 percent. In addition, the Afghan Army is highly motivated and its troops are proven fighters.

Despite those advantages, we face significant challenges. General McChrystal believes--and I agree--that we need to regain the initiative and create a momentum toward success. General McChrystal worries, and rightly so, about the perception that we have lost that initiative and the impact of that perception on the Afghan people, their government, al-Qaida, and the Taliban. By contrast, if we can dispel that perception, we have a chance to convince local and lower level Taliban fighters to lay down their arms and rejoin Afghan society.

I believe the most effective way to retake the initiative in Afghanistan is with a series of steps to ensure that the Afghan Army and police have the manpower, equipment, and support to secure their own nation.

First, we should increase troop levels for the Afghan Army and police faster than currently planned. There are approximately 90,000 troops in the Afghan Army now, and that number is scheduled to go up to 134,000 by October of 2010. The Afghan police are scheduled to reach a level of 82,000 by the same time. For a long time, many of us have urged the establishment of a goal of 240,000 Afghan troops and 160,000 Afghan police by 2013. The Afghan Minister of Defense has strongly supported those numbers. It now appears that our government and the Afghan Government are prepared to accept those goals. But the need for additional Afghan forces is more urgent. I believe it both possible and essential to advance those goals by a year, to 2012.

Our own military in Afghanistan has repeatedly pointed to a need for more Afghan forces. In one sector of Helmand Province we visited last week, our marines outnumbered Afghan soldiers by five to one. A marine company commander in Helmand Province told the New York Times in July that a lack of Afghan troops ``is absolutely our Achilles' heel.''

What do we need to do to increase the size of the Afghan Army and police? According to Afghan Defense Minister Wardak, there is no lack of Afghan manpower. We have been assured it is available. But we will need significantly more trainers. We asked General Formica, who is in charge of the American effort to train Afghan security forces, whether such an increase is possible. He indicated he would make an assessment of what would be necessary in order to meet the earlier timetable. In the meantime, we should press our NATO allies with much greater forcefulness to provide more trainers. If our NATO allies are not going to come through with the combat forces they pledged, at least they could provide additional trainers.

Larger Afghan security forces will also require more mid-level Afghan officers. In addition to supporting efforts to graduate more Afghan officers from army academies, we should consider the recommendation of Defense Minister Wardak that previous midlevel officers who fought the war against the Soviets return to service on an interim basis. Minister Wardak emphasized that those men are well qualified and well motivated. And while they may not be trained in the most current tactics, they nonetheless could temporarily meet the need of the enlarged army while the new group of officers is trained.

A larger Afghan force will need supporting infrastructure, such as barracks. While the available infrastructure may not be the most modern, it is adequate and exists in sufficient amounts.

Larger Afghan security forces will require additional equipment. There must be a major effort to transfer a significant amount of the equipment that is coming out of Iraq to the Afghan Army and police. Such a significant commitment to equip the Afghan security forces would also help demonstrate U.S. determination to take the initiative and create momentum in the right direction. There is an enormous amount of equipment coming out of Iraq. Our military is calling it one of the greatest transfers of military goods in world history. A significant part of it could be transferred to the Afghan forces, increasing their capability without weakening our own readiness. Yet there does not seem to be that kind of a crash effort in place to do just that. We need to obtain, on an urgent basis, a list of the basic equipment needs of the Afghan forces and a list of how those needs could be met in a major program to transfer equipment leaving Iraq.

Rapidly expanding Afghan's military and police forces would address one of the major problems and risks we now face. General McChrystal told us he worries that waiting until 2013 for a larger Afghan force creates a gap in capabilities that brings significant risk of failure. But if we accelerate the training and equipment of Afghan forces by a year, we address his concern. Depending on additional capability from Afghanistan, rather than U.S. forces, also addresses a major problem of public perception in Afghanistan. The larger our own military footprint there, the more our enemies can seek to drive a wedge between us and the Afghan population, spreading the falsehood that we seek to dominate a Muslim nation.

Finally, we should make a concerted effort to separate the local Taliban from their leaders. In Iraq, large numbers of young Iraqis who had been attacking us switched over to our side and became the Sons of Iraq. They were drawn in part by the promise of jobs and amnesty for past attacks and in part by the recognition that the status quo was creating horrific violence in their own communities. In their own interests and the interests of their nation, they switched sides and became a positive force.

That same prospect exists in Afghanistan. Afghan leaders and our own military leaders say that local Taliban forces are motivated largely by the need for a job, loyalty to the local leader who pays them, and not by ideology or religious zeal. They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government side could succeed if they are offered security for themselves and their families and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us.

General McChrystal himself has emphasized the potential for such reintegration to accomplish the same result as was achieved in Iraq. Here is what General McChrystal said on July 28:

Most of the fight materials we see in Afghanistan are

Afghans, some with foreign cadre with them. But most we don't

see are deeply ideological or even politically motivated;

most are operating for pay; some are

under a commander's charismatic leadership; some are

frustrated with local leaders. So I believe there is

significant potential to go after what I would call mid- and

low-level Taliban fighters and leaders and offer them

reintegration into Afghanistan under the constitution.

But this game-changing possibility was apparently not factored into General McChrystal's assessment. There is no plan yet to put in place a Sons of Iraq approach in Afghanistan. It is urgent that we lay out the steps that need to be taken to involve local and national Afghan leaders in that effort. They alone can accomplish this crucial job, but first we and our Afghan allies must draft such a plan on an urgent basis, and the potential positive impact of such a plan should be taken into account as we consider the need for any additional U.S. military resources.

Afghanistan's people are grateful for our aid but also eager to assume responsibility for their own future. In a tiny village in Helmand Province, we were invited to meet with the village elders at their council meeting--called a shura. A group of 100 or so men sat on the floor and chatted with us about their future and their country's future. When asked how long the United States should stay, one elder said: ``Until the moment that you make our security forces self- sufficient. Then you will be welcome to visit us not as soldiers but as guests.''

Helping Afghanistan achieve self-sufficiency and their own security is everybody's goal. On that, there is little difference of opinion in Afghan's village councils or in the corridors of this Capitol. Can we help Afghanistan reach self-sufficiency in security fast enough? Can we get there in a way that regains the initiative and creates the momentum we need? Can we encourage those lower level Taliban to abandon an insurgency headed by terrorists whose fanaticism they do not share? I believe we can, by supporting a far more rapid growth in the Afghan Army and police, by providing more trainers more quickly, by a rapid infusion of two Afghan units of equipment no longer needed in Iraq, and by rapidly adopting a plan for the reintegration of lower level Taliban fighters into Afghan society. In other words, we need a surge of Afghan security forces. Our support of their surge will show our commitment to the success of a mission that is clearly in our national security interest, without creating a bigger U.S. military footprint that provides propaganda fodder for the Taliban.

I believe taking those steps on an urgent basis, while completing the previously planned and announced increase in U.S. combat forces, provides the best chance of success for our mission--preventing Afghanistan from again being run by a Taliban government which harbors and supports al-Qaida, whose goal is to inflict additional catastrophic attacks on the United States and the world. I believe we should implement those steps before considering an increase in U.S. ground combat forces beyond what is already planned by the end of the year.

I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Ohio as well.

Madam President, I join today with colleagues to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy. Each of us has lost a friend with his passing--and all Americans--but especially those in need have lost a champion of government's ability to bring light to dark places. All of us stand in awe of the lengthy record of accomplishment Senator Kennedy leaves us. It was a great privilege to serve many years with Ted Kennedy on the Armed Services Committee and to witness firsthand the traits so well known to Members of the Senate: the tireless preparation, the intimate knowledge of the legislative process, the relentless focus on justice and equality.

Today our citizens are safer, our military more capable, our troops better equipped because of his service.

Senator Kennedy approached his work with diligence and dedication. But he also knew that work goes more smoothly when it is accomplished with friendship and good humor. It was possible to disagree with Ted Kennedy but never to dislike him. His sense of humor was contagious, and his concern for those around him, from fellow Senators to staff, to the many often unheralded people who make the Senate function, ensured that he was loved as well as respected throughout this body. That love extends across lines of party and ideology, in part because of that good humor and genuine concern for others for which he is so rightly known.

But it was not just these qualities that endeared Ted Kennedy to figures of all political persuasions. It was the seriousness and good faith with which he approached ideas that differed from his own. In 1983, this liberal Catholic from Massachusetts traveled to the conservative Liberty Baptist College in Virginia where he told the students:

The more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they

are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and

essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.

Ted Kennedy lived out that sentiment every day. We salute his ability to work across party lines to achieve consensus, to work on a piece of legislation until doubters became enthusiastic supporters. He excelled in transforming nays to yeas. Senator Kennedy was a master of our own specialized world, and his legislative legacy stands with those of the giants of this Chamber. He tackled what some see as the great game of politics with gusto.

But Ted Kennedy's life's work was not a game. Politics was not a contest staged for its own sake or in pursuit of power or prestige. Ted Kennedy was a master not of the politics of the moment but of the politics of meaning.

Ted Kennedy's task was to touch lives. He touched the family whose children have health insurance because of the Children's Health Insurance Program he helped establish; the child who has a better chance at an education because of his work on the No Child Left Behind law. More Americans can fully participate in our democracy because of the civil rights and voting rights legislation he pushed forward.

We saw Ted Kennedy's passion for justice, tolerance, and understanding again recently when we were working on the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention legislation. I quoted him during that debate on that legislation when the Defense authorization bill was on the floor, and I quote him again now. He said:

We want to be able to have a value system that is Worthy

for our brave men and women to defend. They are fighting

overseas for our values. One of the values is, we should

not, in this country, in this democracy, permit the kind

of hatred and bigotry that has stained the history of this

Nation over a considerable period of time.

The children of our men and women in uniform have some of the best childcare available, thanks to the National Military Child Care Act Ted Kennedy championed in 1989. He was actively involved more recently following the outrages at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when we passed the wounded warrior legislation in 2008.

The lesson of Ted Kennedy's life and career is that politics at its best is not a game to be refereed by TV pundits. It is not a contest of poll numbers or a scorecard of grievances to nurse and favors to return. Senator Kennedy struck many deals. He brokered many compromises. He won many votes. But the true majesty of his career is not to be found in this Chamber, though his work was done here. His lesson for us is that democracy is best understood in the homes and lives of its citizens. It is in the homes of families less burdened by want. It is in the minds of children freed by education. It is in the relief of parents who no longer fear for a child in need of medical care. It is in the

souls of Americans who find inspiration in his triumph over tragedy and over his own shortcomings. It is in the hearts of the colleagues he leaves behind who will be inspired to rededicate ourselves to a politics that recognizes our common humanity and seeks common ground in the pursuit of justice.

My wife Barbara and I will always keep in our hearts Vicki, the love of Ted's life, and we will always remember Ted's love affair with the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, and I will vote for the bill on final passage. At a time when we are facing a severe economic downturn and the worst recession in a generation we need to look for creative ways to create jobs and generate revenue that can provide benefits across our urban areas, cities, towns, and rural countryside.

It is therefore timely that the Senate is considering a bill aimed at promoting travel and tourism in the United States. Tourism is a multibillion-dollar industry, and promoting travel to the United States will help stimulate our economy. The people in my home State of Michigan understand the important economic contributions of tourism. In fact, tourism is one of the three largest industries in Michigan along with manufacturing and agriculture.

According to the U.S. Travel Association, in 2007 the travel industry supported 148,700 jobs with a payroll of $3.5 billion in Michigan. Nationally the Senate Travel Promotion Act is expected to create 40,000 new jobs in the first year.

Tourism is a successful industry in Michigan because we have so much to offer visitors. In 1831, the great chronicler of early America and one of our Nation's first tourists, Alexis de Tocqueville, explored the Great Lakes. When he saw Lake Huron, he described it as ``Not grand in poetry only; it's the most extraordinary spectacle that I have seen in my life.''

Indeed, Michigan has the world's longest freshwater coastline. Michigan has beautiful beaches and cherry orchards, maritime museums and shipwreck-diving preserves. We even have some of the world's highest freshwater sand dunes and the only national fresh water marine sanctuary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary at Alpena.

There are over 11,000 inland lakes in Michigan, and we have the second highest number of recreational boats. Michigan also offers plentiful wilderness experiences at national parks and trails: Isle Royale National Park, Keweenaw National Historic Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and the North Country Scenic Trail. Our State has nearly 4 million acres of State forest land, 2.7 million acres of national forest land and some 230 campgrounds. And Michigan has thousands of miles of hiking, biking, cross-country skiing and snowmobiling trails. With so many inviting tourist destinations in Michigan it is no wonder Michigan stands to benefit from the increased travel that will result from the enactment of the Travel Promotion Act.

This bipartisan legislation aims to reverse the decline in overseas visitors to the United States since 9/11 by establishing a nationally coordinated public-private partnership, similar to what exists in many other countries, to increase international travelers to the United States.

At no cost to the taxpayer the legislation would establish the Corporation for Travel Promotion, an independent, nonprofit corporation governed by an 11-member board of directors appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. It also would create an Office of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce to develop programs to increase the number of international visitors in the United States. It is paid for by a public-private matching program, the Travel Promotion Fund. Federal contributions will be financed by a required $10 fee paid by foreign travelers from visa waiver counties and collected via the electronic system for travel authorization.

As the tourism season ramps up in Michigan, we must do everything we can to take advantage of our State's natural beauty and recreation opportunities to grow this critical sector of our economy.