Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Alaska finishes, I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania would be recognized. I would then ask that I be the next Democrat to be recognized.

Mr. LEVIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

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. 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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, while the Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor, let me congratulate him for an extraordinary first year in the Senate. He has made a real difference in his first year. We all are grateful he is present here to assist this Senate and hopefully achieving some very important results. I congratulate him on his freshman year.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Sundance Channel recently aired a documentary entitled ``Nimrod Nation.'' This eight-part series explores the world of small-town American life through the lens of the town of Watersmeet, MI, and their local high school basketball team. Small towns have always been an important part of our country's cultural heritage. The communities and institutions that make up small towns are an essential and enduring aspect of the political, economic and social fabric of our nation. Nearly one quarter of all Americans live in rural areas, approximately the same percentage as live in central cities. With only 1,400 residents, Watersmeet is a rural town in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The town is surrounded by the Ottawa National Forest and the Cisco Chain of Lakes. It is located in a region with a high concentration of Nordic descendants and Native Americans. In an area with not a single movie theater, the residents turn to, among other things, pastimes such as hunting, fishing, and cheering on their local athletic teams. Director Brett Morgen traveled to Watersmeet in 2004 to film three commercials for an ESPN promotional campaign. There he discovered the Watersmeet Nimrods basketball team. The nickname came from the Biblical king Nimrod, a mighty hunter, fisherman and outdoorsman. The commercials highlighted the team's unusual name, and they sold close to $550,000 worth of Nimrod-brand merchandise as a result of this publicity. Mr. Morgen later returned to Watersmeet to document the Nimrod's 2005-6 basketball season while creating a series about the rural town. ``Nimrod Nation'' uncovers one of the many diverse cultures we have in Michigan. The residents of Watersmeet have expressed enthusiasm about the series. It explores the making of head cheese, talks with the town's older citizens at a local cafe, and covers the community's passion for the Nimrod basketball team. These events are woven together to create a portrait of what life in the Upper Peninsula is all about. I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in recognizing the importance of small towns to our country, as well as the congratulating residents of Watersmeet, MI, as their town is showcased in the documentary ``Nimrod Nation.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the past month has been marked by several high profile, tragic shootings. Across the country, Americans have been attacked in places once thought safe, by people wielding deadly firearms. There can be little doubt that the plague of gun violence is continuing to permeate our society. At what point will we say act. Early Sunday morning December 9, a young man entered a Christian missionary center in the Denver suburb of Arvada, carrying an assault rifle and approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Shooting randomly, he gunned down two staff members in their mid-20s and wounded two others. Just over 12 hours later, the same gunman walked into a church 75 miles away in Colorado Springs and killed two sisters, 18 and 16 years-old, and wounded six others, before shooting himself. Four days earlier, on December 5, a young man entered a busy mall in Omaha, NE, carrying an assault rifle. Spraying bullets at people at both point blank range and from the third-floor balcony, sending holiday shoppers running as dozens of shots echoed throughout the mall. Before he turned the gun on himself, the gunman had killed eight people and wounded five others, two critically. Of course, these were only the shootings that captured national headlines. Hundreds of others fell to their deaths this past month at the hands of someone with a firearm. This month caps a year that witnessed the worst ever school shooting in the United States, when a student killed 32 classmates and staff members at Virginia Tech University. Each one of these horrific events emphasizes the need for common sense gun legislation. Together they scream out for change. As 2007 draws to a close I once again urge my colleagues to help put an end to these kind of tragedies by renewing the assault weapons ban.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that we should have a goal for the removal of most of our forces in a reasonable time mainly as a way of telling the Iraqi leaders they must accept responsibility for their own future. Our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress. It is not legally binding, but it puts us on record, and it sends a message. It says it is the sense of the Congress that: The United States Armed Forces in Iraq should transition to the more limited set of missions laid out by President Bush in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation-- counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces-- And we add-- in addition to the necessary mission of force protection, with the goal of completing that transition by the end of 2008. The primary aim of this amendment is to keep the pressure on the Iraqi politicians to do what only they can do: Work out compromises, as they promised to do long ago--to compromise the differences which divide them so as to ensure the currently relatively calm situation in many parts of Iraq, including Baghdad, remains calm. Our sense of Congress language is aimed at pressuring the Iraqi politicians to seize the window of opportunity, as General Odierno put it, to avoid a return to the violence that characterized the presurge period. The New York Times, in a story on December 5, quoted Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi as saying about the present situation in Iraq: ``It is more a cease-fire than a peace.'' Well, we need to make it clear to those Iraqi political leaders that a cease-fire is not good enough. They must take the steps to turn that cease-fire into a real peace. From all accounts, the surge has already produced some military progress. The problem is that while the surge has, up to this point, achieved some military progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose, as announced by President Bush last January. President Bush said the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi Government ``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas'' and that ``reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.'' The President also said ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks that it has announced.'' Well, the administration has not done what it said it would do--hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks that it, the Iraqi Government, has announced. Those legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1\1/2\ years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided. Despite the breathing space the brave men and women wearing our uniform have provided the Iraqi leaders, despite the breathing room and the breathing space which young men and women putting their lives in harm's way on behalf of this Nation to give the Iraqis an opportunity to create a nation, they have not used that breathing space. And as a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than they were at the start of the surge. The Iraqi political leadership's response to the breathing space provided by the surge has been stunning inaction. The Iraqi Parliament has suspended its session until the New Year, thus ensuring that not 1--not 1--of the 18 legislative benchmarks that they committed to meet will be met this year. The President's statement that he will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced is hollow rhetoric. To date, there have been no consequences for Iraqis' failures to meet those benchmarks. Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this window of opportunity is, of course, their decision. The United States cannot make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country and have to decide what is best for themselves. But whether the United States keeps an open-ended commitment or establishes a goal for redeployment of most of our forces is our decision. That is not the Iraqis' decision. They can decide whether to live up to the commitments they made to themselves and to us--solemn commitments, as far as I am concerned, because it involves the lives of American troops. Those solemn commitments have not been kept. We cannot force them to keep them, but we can decide whether we are going to maintain an open-ended commitment of our troops. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Mr. LEVIN. I intend to yield back all that time but 30 seconds. I cannot believe the President of the United States is going to veto a bill providing this additional funding for the troops because the Senate, in a nonbinding resolution, expresses its belief that we ought to have a nonbinding timetable for the reduction of our troops by the end of the year. If the President has said that, I have not seen it. I can't believe he would so try to squelch the Senate from expressing a nonbinding opinion. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I am also very interested in ensuring that advanced batteries and battery systems are fully developed and believe that loan guarantees for projects and facilities to develop lithium ion batteries could provide a significant boost for U.S. competitiveness. In the case of battery technologies, we need to develop the manufacturing capability in this country to ensure that these batteries will be produced here. Is it the chairman's understanding that advanced battery technologies would be included in the scope of the budget authority in this bill and would be eligible for a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Voinovich, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Smith, and Senator Salazar, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 3 additional minutes. According to our own State Department, the key threat to our effort in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi political leaders to reach a political settlement. Listen to what the State Department said in its own weekly status report of November 21, 2007. This is our State Department: Senior military commanders [U.S. 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. Let me read that once again. This is our State Department saying what is the key threat to our forces in Iraq. What they are saying is that it is not the Iranian-backed militias, it is not the Sunni insurgents, it is not the al-Qaida terrorists; the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, according to our State Department, is ``the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government.'' We have to break that intransigence. How can Congress do it? How do we put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? At a minimum, by at least expressing our view that U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more supporting and a less direct role, with a goal--a goal, just a goal--of completing that transition by the end of 2008. The message the Iraqi political leaders need to hear is that Congress has lost patience with them, as have the American people. By their own Prime Minister's acknowledgment, a political solution is the only way to end the conflict, and ending the conflict is in their own hands. I wish we could legislate a legally binding way forward for U.S. forces in Iraq. We have tried to do that. We have not been able to break the filibuster, to get to 60 votes. But at least expressing the sense of the Congress on this matter is better than silence because silence implies acquiescence in the open-endedness of our presence. It is that open-ended commitment which takes the pressure off the Iraqi political leaders, and Congress needs to act to correct that. Our amendment is a small but important step in that direction.

Mr. LEVIN. Fine. That is fine with us. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, and we will come back to you.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVIN. Before I yield to the Senator from California, let me respond briefly to my friend from Virginia. There is no inconsistency between voting to adopt a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing as a goal, nonbinding, that we complete a transition to a more limited mission, a mission which the President says he wants to transition to by the end of next year and at the same time voting for the McConnell amendment. There will be many Senators voting for the Levin-Reed amendment who are also going to vote for the McConnell amendment. There is no inconsistency whatsoever between sending our troops the funding which has been requested and having a goal for the transition of their mission to something which gets them out of the middle of a civil war. That is the one point I wish to make immediately to my good friend from Virginia. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEVIN. The message is not conflicting at all. There is no conflict between saying we are going to support our troops, we are not going to reduce funding for them, and at the same time have a goal a year hence for when they transition to the more limited mission. There is not the slightest inconsistency. It is not a conflicting message. If we are interested in success in Iraq, there is only one way to achieve it--for the Iraqi politicians to reach agreement on their differences which have continued the conflict. That is not just me saying it. That is our military leaders. I wish to read this quote because I am not sure people have focused on it. This is our State Department. I ask my colleagues to listen to this very brief quote from our State Department: Senior military commanders 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. Is that a conflicting message from our State Department, when they identify the political leaders of Iraq as being the major threat to our success? They are the major threat to our success. We all know it. Our military leaders have said it is the failure of the political leaders of Iraq to work out their differences, which is the key problem that keeps the battle going on between Iraqis. That is our State Department. Is that a conflicting message? I don't think so. It is the truth. Most of us recognize it. We are all completely unhappy with the Iraqi political leaders. Most of us, when we go to Iraq, tell them that. The President of the United States has even said it is useful for that message to be delivered. Let us deliver it tonight.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Committee, Senator Dorgan, to clarify for me the scope of the budget authority contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act for the Department of Energy's guarantee loans for development of advanced energy technologies. My understanding is that there would be $10 billion in budget authority for the Department to guarantee loans in the broad technology areas of renewable, energy efficiency, manufacturing, electricity transmission and distribution technologies. I believe there is tremendous potential for new technologies to produce ethanol from cellulosic materials through all phases of development, including pretreatment. An important step toward proving these technologies will be the development of pilot-scale facilities. Is it the chairman's understanding that a range of technologies and pilot-scale demonstration facilities would be eligible for a loan guarantee issued by the Department of Energy using the budget authority included in this Consolidated Appropriations Act?

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. As does the majority leader. If I could just introduce this thought: We have three additional Members, we believe, who wish to speak: Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator McCaskill. Those are the ones we have so far on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry. I was distracted.

Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank my friends from Massachusetts, Maryland and Oregon for their support. As I have said before, the United States has a special responsibility to assist those individuals fleeing Iraq and particularly to those individuals who assisted the United States. In the case of this legislation, it is the intent of the conferees to provide Iraqi SIVs the full array of benefits traditionally provided to refugees as described by my friend from Maryland.

Mr. LEVIN. My friend from Maryland is correct: despite provision of benefits, these SIVs, due to their special status, are not to be counted against immigrant or refugee caps. Does my friend from Massachusetts concur?