Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Let me see if we can accomplish that. Mr. WARNER. I see the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LEVIN. I apologize. I think the Senator is correct. It has been announced these will be the last two votes, depending on the outcome of the second vote.

Mr. LEVIN. The last two votes today.

Mr. LEVIN. That is the existing unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. LEVIN. He has indicated his willingness to me, and I ask unanimous consent, that I have 3 of those minutes at this time.

Mr. LEVIN. If cloture is obtained, I would be willing. I have to make sure that is acceptable to others.

Mr. LEVIN. I was perfectly content to have these votes occur immediately after the recess. I am the last one who wants to hold up our colleagues from leaving, and I will abide by the suggestion of the good Senator from Virginia.

Mr. LEVIN. Senators Helms, Kennedy, Jeffords, all of us--not all of us, many of us at times--have said we should not vote on a nomination until relevant documents have been obtained by the interested Senator, relevant to that confirmation process. We have supported those Senators in getting those documents. It has been an institutional position that Senators should be able to get documents that relate to a confirmation of a particular nominee. These are documents which relate to this nomination or may relate to this confirmation process. We don't know until we see the documents, but we do know two things, that Mr. Flory was a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Feith office and he was actively involved in the discussions and the matters to which these documents pertain and that he is named in a number of the documents we have been able to obtain as being involved in this subject matter. That much we know. That is more than enough, it seems to me, for this body to insist that these documents be made available before we vote on his confirmation. Finally, he is in office now. We are not blocking him from going into that office. He got a recess appointment. To reiterate, there is nothing novel or unique about holding up a nomination in order to obtain information that is being withheld by executive branch officials. This defense of Senate prerogatives goes back a long way, probably to our beginning. In 1972, Senator Sam Ervin insisted that the Senate would not vote on the nomination of Richard Kleindienst to be Attorney General until the administration provided information on a deal to drop an antitrust case against ITT in return for a $400,000 campaign contribution. The administration eventually provided the information and the nomination was confirmed, In 1991, Senator Helms blocked the nomination of George Fleming Jones to be U.S. Ambassador to Guyana until he received State Department cables in which one of Helms' aides was accused of leaking U.S. intelligence to the Pinochet government. The administration eventually provided the information and the nomination was confirmed. In 2004, Senator Jeffords placed a hold on nominations for four top jobs at the Environmental Protection Agency because of 12 unmet requests for documents over the previous three years. The documents in question related to the Bush administration's changes to air pollution rules. In short, the Senate has a longstanding practice of holding up nominations in order to obtain documents relevant to confirmation and oversight responsibilities. This has been done by Senators of both parties, in Senates controlled by both parties, and with administrations controlled by both parties. It is in the interest of the Senate as a whole to uphold our right to documents. It is at times essential to our obtaining the information we need to do our jobs. All colleagues should protect the right of any colleague to documents relevant to a nominee in a confirmation process. This information that we seek is directly relevant to the nomination of Mr. Flory. The entire Senate should, as an institutional matter, insist on access to the relevant information before we act on his nomination. We should speak with one Senatorial voice against executive branch stonewalling on access to relevant information. Mr. Flory has received a recess appointment to the position to which he has been nominated. By refusing to act on his nomination until we receive this information, we are not preventing this individual from carrying out his executive duties. On the contrary, it is the Executive Branch which is obstructing the Senate's ability to carry out our confirmation responsibilities when they deny us relevant documents. I hope every member of the Senate will stand together to defend the right of the Senate to have access to the relevant documents that bear on this nomination.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No, this matter.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield? I don't know how much time I used on the previous comments.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Whether cloture is invoked or not, we have agreed this will be the last vote.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Gordon England to the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense. Secretary England has been the Department's problem-solver for the last 5 years. In this brief period of time, he has served as Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of the Navy again, and--after being under consideration to serve as Secretary of the Air Force--as Deputy Secretary of Defense. At the request of the Secretary of Defense, he has also taken on such critical jobs as designing the new National Security Personnel System and overseeing the review of the status of DOD detainees at Guantanamo. Secretary England has always made himself available for hearings, meetings with Members, and discussions with the wide array of others who have interests and concerns about the operations and activities of the Department of Defense. He is a good listener, open to compromise, willing to take on tough problems--characteristics which are always in great demand and short supply at DOD. The Deputy Secretary of Defense serves in a position of awesome responsibility. He is the alter ego of the Secretary. In this capacity, the Deputy Secretary plays a key role in determining how our country will face critical national security challenges. At the same time, the Deputy Secretary of Defense has traditionally served as the chief manager of the Defense Department. A wide array of management challenges, including financial management, acquisition management, and human capital issues, cut across functional areas in the Department to such an extent that no official other than the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary has the authority needed to address them. Fortunately, Secretary England brings the kind of strong management background and commitment to addressing these issues that are needed in the Deputy Secretary position. For the last several months, Secretary England has served as Deputy Secretary of Defense under a recess appointment by the President. I believe that his service to the Department and the Nation over the last 5 years merit a favorable vote on his nomination by the full Senate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, the Senate has engaged in an important debate that is long overdue. Our current immigration system is broken and has been broken for many years. Although this problem is complex, the need for reform is clear, and I am pleased that the Senate is moving forward on the issue. We need to make comprehensive, responsible, and commonsense reforms that will stem the tide of illegal immigrants, will be fair to those who are here legally, and will deal realistically with the millions of illegal immigrants already here. I believe U.S. immigration policy should establish clear procedures for determining who can enter this country legally. And it must provide the tools for apprehending those who enter the United States illegally and to punish those who hire them at the same time. We must honor our traditions as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, enriched by the diversity of newcomers. The Senate Judiciary Committee worked hard to create a bipartisan package that would accomplish many of those goals. The bill before us today would strengthen security at our borders through advanced technology, increased border patrol, and heavier fines. It would create a sustainable temporary worker program to help fill the lowest wage jobs, which pay little and are short of American takers. And it would provide a path to citizenship that does not bump anybody who is here legally but would allow law-abiding, hard-working undocumented immigrants to go to the end of the line. I am pleased by the inclusion of the AgJOBS bill in the Specter substitute amendment. The agriculture industry is the second largest industry in Michigan, behind manufacturing, and it depends upon the work of immigrants. The AgJOBS provision would provide protections for both the immigrant and American workers. It is estimated that without a guest worker program that allow for agricultural workers, the State of Michigan would lose hundreds of millions of dollars. In short, the AgJOBS provision is vital to the economic health of Michigan. The security provisions in this bill are also important for Michigan and for the Nation. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out in its final report, the northern border has traditionally received dramatically less attention and resources from the Federal Government. I am pleased that the language passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and included in the Specter substitute amendment authorizes an additional 12,000 Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, and requires that at least 20 percent of these agents be stationed along our northern border. I was also pleased that Senator Collins is joining me in an amendment to help ensure our Border Patrol agents and other Federal officials involved in border security--including police officers, National Guard personnel, and emergency response providers--have the capability to communicate with each other and with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts. The Levin-Collins amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish demonstration projects on the northern and southern borders to address the interoperable communications needs of those who have border security responsibilities. These projects would identify common frequencies for communications equipment between United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico and provides training and equipment to relevant personnel. Overall, this legislation would be a step forward on a challenging and pressing issue. It contains important bipartisan provisions that will enhance our security and our prosperity while being fair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in each of the last 4 years, amendments have been inserted in the Commerce, Justice, Science, CJS, Appropriations Act by the House of Representatives which severely handicap the efforts of those working to stop the flow of guns from reckless gun dealers into the hands of criminals. These amendments prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, from disclosing important information from the Firearms Trace System Database to local law enforcement and government officials unless it is connected to a ``bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution'' and prohibiting release for purposes of civil lawsuits. According to published reports, these amendments have directly impacted a lawsuit by the city of New York against several gun manufacturers and distributors who it alleges have adopted sales and marketing practices which facilitate the transfer of guns to criminals. The city received ATF firearms trace data from 1998 to 2003 but has been unable to attain data from subsequent years because of the prohibition inserted in the law on its release for the purposes of civil lawsuits. Legislation has recently been introduced in the House of Representatives which would make the restrictions on ATF firearms trace data permanent. On March 28, 2006, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified before the House Judiciary Committee against this bill and said that it ``would make it immeasurably harder to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals, and depriv[e] local governments and their law enforcement agencies of the tools they need to hold dealers accountable. Specifically, these obstacles would take the form of severe restrictions on our use of ATF trace data, which is perhaps the most effective tool we have in combating illegal gun trafficking.'' Mayor Bloomberg also expressed concern regarding provisions in the bill and current law which limit the ATF firearms trace data available to local law enforcement officials to data regarding the local geographic data. Mayor Bloomberg testified that 82 percent of the guns used in crimes in New York City were purchased outside of New York State. As Mayor Bloomberg pointed out in his testimony, restricting the access of law enforcement officials to firearms trace data from other jurisdictions severely limits their ability to take action against reckless gun dealers in other States. I am hopeful the House of Representatives will defeat efforts to continue restrictions on law enforcement and local government officials' access to important ATF firearms trace data. In addition, I am hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass legislation introduced last week by Senator Menendez to repeal restrictions in current law. ATF firearms trace data related to reckless gun dealers should be made easily available to those who have a responsibility to protect our families and communities from the threat of gun violence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes Restoration Implementation Act'' with Senator Mike DeWine and our co- sponsors, Senators Debbie Stabenow, George Voinovich, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I also want to thank Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rahm Emanuel for introducing similar Great Lakes restoration legislation in the House today. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the Nation. Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 33 million people. They provide the largest recreational resource for their neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market. While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report 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.'' The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years, and, for the past year, 1,500 people through the Great Lakes region have worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released last December, and, today, I am introducing this legislation to implement those recommendations. This bill would reduce the threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the operation and maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would restore fish and wildlife habitat by reauthorizing the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. It would provide additional resources to States and cities for their water infrastructure. It would provide additional funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and would give the EPA additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase-out mercury in products. It would authorize additional research through existing Federal programs as well as our non-Federal research institutions. And it would authorize coordination of federal programs. 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 current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good stewards by ensuring that the federal government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This legislation will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Great Lakes Restoration Implementation Act'' with Senator Mike DeWine and our co- sponsors, Senators Debbie Stabenow, George Voinovich, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I also want to thank Representatives Vern Ehlers and Rahm Emanuel for introducing similar Great Lakes restoration legislation in the House today. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the Nation. Roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 33 million people. They provide the largest recreational resource for their neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total; only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market. While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report 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.'' The Great Lakes problems have been well-known for several years, and, for the past year, 1,500 people through the Great Lakes region have worked together to compile recommendations for restoring the lakes. These recommendations were released last December, and, today, I am introducing this legislation to implement those recommendations. This bill would reduce the threat of new invasive species by enacting comprehensive invasive species legislation and put ballast technology on board ships; it specifically targets Asian carp by authorizing the operation and maintenance of the dispersal barrier. The bill would restore fish and wildlife habitat by reauthorizing the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. It would provide additional resources to States and cities for their water infrastructure. It would provide additional funding for contaminated sediment cleanup and would give the EPA additional tools under the Great Lakes Legacy Act to move projects along faster. The bill would create a new grant program to phase-out mercury in products. It would authorize additional research through existing Federal programs as well as our non-Federal research institutions. And it would authorize coordination of federal programs. 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 current problems will continue to build, and we may start to undo some of the good work that has already been done. We must be good stewards by ensuring that the federal government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This legislation will help us meet that great responsibility to future generations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, unfortunately the U.S. Congress is not addressing the issue of gun violence prevention, and several States have enacted laws which have made communities, and especially the children who live in them, less safe. Earlier this month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released its 9th annual Report Card on State Gun Violence Prevention Laws and highlighted the inadequacy of many state laws relating to gun safety. Each year, the Brady Campaign report assigns individual states a grade of ``A'' through ``F'' on seven types of gun safety laws that protect children from gun violence. The Brady Campaign includes in its analysis such questions as: Is it illegal for a child to possess a gun without supervision? Is it illegal to sell a gun to a child? Are gun owners held responsible for leaving loaded guns easily accessible to children? Are guns required to have child-safety locks, loaded-chamber indicators and other childproof designs? Do cities and counties have authority to enact local gun safety laws? Are background checks required at gun shows? And, is it legal to carry concealed handguns in public? The grades assigned by the Brady Campaign show that State gun laws around the country continue to fall well short of what is needed to adequately protect children from gun violence. While six States received an ``A,'' unchanged from last year, 32 states received a grade of ``D'' or ``F,'' an increase of one. Only one State improved its grade from last year, while three others took actions that will make communities less safe from the threat of gun violence. The Brady Campaign notes a few positive developments in State legislatures, including the consideration of state-level assault weapons bans by at least four states. Despite bipartisan support for its reauthorization, the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004 due to inaction by the President and Republican leadership in the Congress. Fortunately, the lack of Federal leadership on the assault weapons ban and several other gun safety issues has not discouraged citizens from working within their own communities and urging State legislatures to address the problems associated with gun violence. The Brady Campaign specifically recognized the importance of gun violence prevention advocates and leaders in several major cities, including Detroit, for their grassroots efforts. These efforts by local community leaders are needed now more than ever. Congress should take up and pass commonsense gun safety legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban and help keep other dangerous firearms out of the hands of criminals and children.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I opposed the Ensign amendment on earmarks because I believe that it would have done more to hide earmarks than to expose them. Under the bill before the Senate, an earmark is defined as a provision, that specifies a non-Federal entity to receive assistance and the amount of that assistance. The Ensign amendment would have revised the language to include assistance provided to any entity, whether Federal or non-Federal. Every item of discretionary spending is directed to some entity. Most is directed to Federal entities, such as funding provided to the Department of Justice, the Department of State, or the Department of Defense, all of which are Federal entities. As I read the Ensign amendment, it would have categorized every item of Federal discretionary spending as an earmark. That would make the term meaningless. It would also hide the real earmarks in a huge list of routine funding provisions that none of us consider to be earmarks. The amendment is simply too broadly drawn, and that is why I opposed it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I returned on Saturday evening from a trip to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, and England. The trip was led by a very dear friend of mine and a great leader of this Senate who happens to be the Presiding Officer at the moment, Senator Warner of Virginia, and it included Senator Sessions, Senator Thomas, Senator Bingaman, Senator Salazar, in addition to myself. I know if the Presiding Officer was allowed to speak in the position in which he sits that he would be the first to acknowledge that this was one of the most extraordinary trips either one of us has ever taken in the 28 years we have served together in the U.S. Senate. The focus of the trip was to assess the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also conveyed to the men and women of our Armed Forces the extraordinary support for them in the Congress and throughout the Nation, regardless of our debates and differences over Iraq policy. In meeting with our troops, including many from my home State of Michigan, it was they who lifted our spirits. As always, I came away deeply impressed by the professionalism, dedication, and high morale of our troops. They are truly America's finest. The situation in Afghanistan is hopeful. President Karzai has led his nation with a firm and steady hand. He has successfully, albeit gradually, neutralized the warlords and demobilized and disarmed their forces. The Taliban has indeed regrouped to some extent and, together with a much weakened al-Qaida, are capable of causing casualties among the Afghan Army and coalition and NATO forces, but they are not a threat to the Afghan nation. Meanwhile, the Afghan Army is growing stronger, the training of the Afghan police is improving, a large number of provincial reconstruction teams are helping with local governance, and NATO is assuming more of the burden of providing security throughout the country. Serious work does remain, including the need to deal with poppy cultivation and the drug traffickers. But overall the situation in Afghanistan provides grounds for optimism. Sadly, the same cannot be said of Iraq. The situation in Iraq is deeply troubling and threatens to grow worse. Since the recent attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, there has been a huge increase in sectarian violence. The increase is so significant that our senior military leaders in Iraq say it has replaced the insurgent attacks on Iraqi and coalition forces as the No. 1 security problem there. Although there has been some progress in training the Iraqi Army, even a stronger Iraqi Army cannot prevent a civil war. Only the political and religious leaders and the police can do that. The police are not making significant progress in coming together as a cohesive force. In some critical areas, including Baghdad, where the militias continue to dominate, the police are not reliable and are still likely to respond to the sectarian calls of the clerics and the militias instead of the government. Do we need to succeed in Iraq now that we are there? Yes, because the outcome there will have a major effect on the region and on our own security. I define success as a stable Iraq with a government of national unity supported by a reliable national army and police who are not weakened by sectarian fissures. To achieve that success, General Casey, the Commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, reiterated to us that there is no military solution to the violence without a political solution. We need to do everything we can to help the Iraqis achieve a prompt political solution, which means the quick formation of a government of national unity involving representatives of the three main Iraqi factions. It also means a highly sectarian individual would not be heading up the Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of the Interior. The alternative to a prompt formation of a government of national unity by Iraqi leaders is a continuation of this drift to all-out civil war. In Baghdad we met with Prime Minister Jaafari, who was nominated by the dominant Shiite faction--the United Iraqi Alliance--as their candidate for Prime Minister in the new government. Although he was confident that a national unity government would be formulated by the end of April, his optimism was not widely shared by others we met. Moreover, his one-vote victory for the nomination to continue on as Prime Minister is being contested from both within and without the Shiite coalition. I shared with him the letter to President Bush that Senators Collins, Jack Reed, and I had written, the bottom line of which is that: A prompt political settlement is not only essential to the Iraqis, it is a condition of our continued presence. I told him his ``end of April'' commitment to President Jaafari, in my judgment, met that test of a prompt political settlement. We also met with leaders from the two main Sunni Arab parties: Mr. Hashimi and Mr. Samarai of the Iraqi Islamic Party, and Mr. Mutlak of the Iraqi Dialogue Council. They were not optimistic about the negotiations and forcefully advocated a decisional role rather than a facilitating role for the United States in the negotiations. Mr. Mutlak argued: You are responsible for this mess and you must correct what you have done. You have to dictate the result. The Sunni leaders were also of the view that Iraq has been in the midst of a civil war between the militias and the innocent Iraqis for some time, and they voiced their concern about Iranian influence over the Shiite parties. I told them, and I know the other members of our codel, of our delegation told them as bluntly as we know how that their dictator was removed at a great loss of American blood and treasure and that the Iraqis and only the Iraqis will decide their own fate, and that our continued presence should depend on their promptly choosing a path of reconciliation and unity against violence and terror. On our second day in Iraq we met with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. One constant theme we found in Iraq and elsewhere in the region was the high regard with which all hold our Ambassador, Mr. Khalilzad. Unfortunately, although the parties are finally talking, more than 3 months after the elections, Ambassador Khalilzad was not encouraging that a political solution is in sight. He is putting modest pressure on the Iraqis. For instance, he told the Iraqis our response to continued deadlock of Iraq's political leaders might not be to their liking. He has told the Iraqi political leaders: It is your decision, and after you make it, we will make our own decision in response. Although his statement is on the right track, it is still too subtle. It is too oblique. The political leaders of Iraq are deadlocked, feuding while Iraq descends toward all-out civil war. There is little chance of achieving a government of national unity without our pointedly and forcefully persuading the parties to make the compromises necessary to achieve it. But what is the leverage that could be used to pointedly persuade the Iraqi leaders to make those needed compromises? We can't dictate to them who should be their leaders. That would undermine the President's belatedly arrived at explanation for his decision to attack Iraq, which is replacing a brutal dictator with a democracy. Yes, there should be a need to apply pressure. The prospect of sectarian clashes and the specter of civil war should be sufficient incentives on their own to end the deadlock. But, so far, they don't appear to be. To help break the political gridlock, a combination of carrots and sticks is required. The carrot is the provision of economic development funds, particularly from neighboring wealthy countries, on the condition that a national unity government is created and produces a coherent economic plan. The biggest stick is clearly telling the Iraqis that our continued presence in Iraq is dependent upon their promptly putting together a government of national unity. Sadly, the rhetoric of the President and the administration has often worked against the pressure which needs to be applied against the Iraqi leaders. The President recently asked the American people, for instance, for their patience. I believe instead he should be telling the Iraqi leaders bluntly and openly that the American people are understandably downright impatient with Iraqi leaders fiddling while Baghdad is burning. The Secretary of State has said we are in Iraq as long as needed. I believe she should be telling the Iraqi leaders that our continued presence is dependent upon their doing what only they can do: reach an agreement on a government of national unity. That political settlement is not only the best hope, it is the only hope of ending the insurgency and the sectarian strife. The pressure to reach an agreement on a government of national unity needs to be applied clearly and forcefully, pointedly and publicly, not just by President Bush but also by the leaders of Iraq's neighbors. In our meeting with the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, we urged him to do just that, and he said he would. The leaders of all of Iraq's neighboring countries need to do the same because an unstable and civil war-torn Iraq threatens them even more than us. Is there a risk in this course of forcefully pressing Iraqi leaders to agree on a national unity government? Is there a risk in following that course? The answer is yes. But there is a greater risk in continuing on the current course of political gridlock while sectarian fires threaten to burn out of control. The President needs to act based on the reality that we confront in Iraq. He recently said if there were a premature departure of American troops that ``Iraq would become a place of instability.'' Would become? Iraq is a place of grave instability, and to use the words of Ambassador Khalilzad in an interview he gave with a London newspaper: ``Iraq is moving towards civil war.'' My conclusion is this: President Bush needs to forcefully transmit a message to the Iraqis in plain and simple language: your survival as a nation depends on your working things out together. Your survival as a nation is in the hands of your political leaders, not our military. Along with Senator Collins and Senator Jack Reed, as I indicated, we wrote the President on March 10, 2006, and ended with the following thoughts: We urge you to make it clear to the Iraqis how important it is to us that they achieve a political settlement, form a unity government, and make the necessary amendments to their Constitution. We believe it is essential that the Iraqi leaders understand that our continued presence is not unconditional, and that whether they avoid all-out civil war and have a future as a Nation is in their hands. If they don't seize that opportunity, we can't protect them or save them from themselves. We ended: The bottom line is this: The United States needs to make it clear to Iraqi leaders that a prompt political settlement is not only essential to them, it is a condition of our continued presence. We all want to succeed in Iraq, regardless of the positions we took going in. Whether we favored or opposed our intervention, and whether we are critics or supporters of the administration's policies since then, we all want to succeed. We all want to try to leave Iraq in better condition, obviously, than we found it. But to maximize the chances of success, we need to maximize pressure on the leaders of Iraq to end their political deadlock. The insurgents and outside terrorists are not going to be defeated and civil war is not going to be averted if Iraqi leaders are at war with themselves. They should know that if they squander the chance to bring political unity to Iraq, we cannot and will not protect them from their own folly. Let me close by thanking our Presiding Officer for leading, again, one of the most extraordinary visits to a foreign country that I have ever participated in. His leadership was essential to making the visits that we were able to make and for all of us to come back with greater information and with thoughts about where the future lies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the letter that I referred to from the three Senators be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair again for his leadership, not only on this one trip but for his leadership in the Senate on so many matters of national security, including the ongoing effort that all of us are participating in to find a positive outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed in morning business for 15 minutes.