[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 27]
[Senate]
[Pages 36345-36346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               MESSAGE TO THE IRAQI POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to review the outcome of last 
evening's debate and vote on the Iraq amendment that I offered along 
with Senators Reed, Voinovich, Hagel, Snowe, Reid, Smith, and Salazar.
  The amendment expressed the sense of the Congress that the missions 
of the U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to counterterrorism 
operations, and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces, as 
well as force protection, and that--and this is, perhaps, the most 
critical, the important part of the amendment we voted on--that it 
should be the goal to complete that transition by the end of 2008.
  The vote on our amendment was 50 yeas and 45 nays.
  Legislating on Iraq is a difficult matter because of the need to gain 
60 votes in order to overcome a filibuster, and it was made perhaps 
even more difficult last night because the Republican leader stated 
that the President would veto the Consolidated Appropriations Act if it 
contained our amendment.
  Now, imagine that. The President of the United States would veto 
funds for the troops if 60 or more Senators simply expressed their 
nonbinding opinion that a goal should be to bring most of our troops 
home by the end of next year. I would hope the President would welcome 
at least the nonbinding advice of the Congress and not threaten funding 
for the troops if that advice were forthcoming.
  Despite a great deal of pressure, including the veto threat, our 
amendment secured six Republican votes--more Republican votes than 
amendments to change course in Iraq have secured to date. Senators 
Voinovich, Hagel, Snowe, Smith, Collins, and Dole joined 44 of the 46 
Democrats who were present to produce a 50-vote majority in favor of 
our amendment.
  I am confident that at least four of the five absent Senators would 
have supported our amendment, as they have done in the past. So we 
would have had 54 votes in favor of our amendment, which would have 
been the most votes thus far for this type of a policy change in Iraq.
  Now, what does that majority Senate vote mean, last night's majority 
vote? What message does it send to the White House, the American 
people, the Iraqi political leadership, and the Iraqi people?
  I believe the message is that more and more Senators are embracing 
the view that the American people reflected during the last election a 
little over a year ago; namely, that we want to change course in Iraq, 
and we want to have a reasonable timetable for the return of most of 
our troops, and that we have reached the limits of our patience with 
the Iraqi political leadership.
  I hope the President takes full notice of last night's majority vote, 
although the majority will was thwarted by a filibuster. I am sure he 
is aware of the vote, since the Republican leader said the President 
would veto the legislation if it contained our amendment.
  I hope the American people understand a growing majority of the 
Senate agrees with their view that we need to establish a goal for the 
reduction of most of our forces in Iraq and the goal should be most 
should leave Iraq by the end of next year.
  I hope the Iraqi political leaders understand a growing majority of 
the Senate is willing to vote to change course in Iraq as a way to 
bring pressure on them to make the long-promised political compromises 
that virtually everyone agrees are required to end the violence in 
Iraq.
  I hope Prime Minister Maliki, in particular, understands what the 
U.S. Department of State said on November 21 about him and the other 
political leaders in Iraq. This is an extraordinary finding by the 
Department of State. I hope it gets somehow or other through to Prime 
Minister Maliki. Here is what the Department of State report said:

       Senior U.S. military commanders now portray the 
     intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the 
     key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-
     Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed 
     militias.

  I wish the President of the United States would read his own State 
Department report so that not only would the majority of the Senate 
adopt resolutions intending to put pressure on the Iraqi leadership by 
telling them the open-ended commitment of American forces is over, but 
that the President of the United States would tell the Iraqi leaders 
what his own State Department said in that November 21 report. It is so 
important that I am going to repeat it:

       Senior U.S. military commanders now portray the 
     intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the 
     key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-
     Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed 
     militias.

  I hope the members of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, the Iraqi 
Parliament, understand they must find a way to bring about 
reconciliation or face the consequences of squandering that window of 
opportunity provided by the military successes of the surge that, as 
General Odierno notes, will not be open forever. As I did after my trip 
to Iraq last August, I once again express my personal hope that the 
Iraqi Parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with someone who is 
willing to strongly push national reconciliation and to replace that 
Prime Minister with someone less connected to a sectarian group.
  Finally, I wish to note that while last night's vote relative to Iraq 
was the last such vote this year, it is not the last vote the Senate is 
likely to hold on our policy in Iraq. The $70 billion approved last 
night is only about one-third the amount the administration has sought 
for Iraq and Afghanistan. The next time the Congress considers funding 
for the war in Iraq, of the many factors that Members will no doubt 
consider, none will be more important than whether Iraqi political 
leaders have compromised with each other and assumed responsibility for 
the future of their own country.

[[Page 36346]]




                   Thanking Staff and Senator Salazar

  As others of my colleagues, let me add my thanks to our staffs, the 
Senate staff, our pages, all the people who make it possible for us to 
try to do the best job we can do. We don't often express our thanks to 
our staffs, to our pages, but this is surely the appropriate time of 
year to pause for a moment to express that gratitude to them. Without 
their support, without their assistance, it would not be possible for 
us to function. They make it possible for us to do a lot better than we 
otherwise would and even to make it possible for us to do some 
important things once in a while.
  I wish to also express my thanks to the Presiding Officer. General 
Salazar I almost called Senator Salazar--Senator Salazar has been of 
invaluable assistance to me on so many matters, and I know that feeling 
exists with other Members of the Senate. As I talk about Iraq this 
afternoon, looking at our Presiding Officer, Senator Salazar, I am 
reminded of the countless numbers of times and the efforts Senator 
Salazar has made to try to pull this body together to see if we 
couldn't make a difference in terms of Iraq policy. That effort to 
achieve a bridge across the aisle, to bring Senators together, is 
something which Senator Salazar does as well as any Member of this 
body. Even though we don't often or always succeed in achieving 
bipartisan results, we would achieve them far fewer times but for the 
assistance and help of our Presiding Officer. So I wish to add my 
thanks to him as well.
  I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________