Floor Statements

Madam President, for too long the Federal Government has stood idle as Michigan's unemployment rate has soared, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and working families have felt the squeeze of the rising costs of energy, health care and food. I am glad that we are moving today on these short-term measures to stimulate our lagging economy--heaven knows we can't afford not to. But there is more we must do to fight for American jobs, and I am disappointed that the Republican Leadership blocked our attempt to significantly improve this package. I look forward to addressing the shortcomings of this bill with additional legislation in the near future.

At a minimum, we need to pass the provisions that were in the amendment offered yesterday that was based on the work done by the Senate Finance Committee. Unfortunately, that amendment with bipartisan support fell only 1 vote shy of the 60 it needed to overcome the Republican filibuster. I am hopeful that under new circumstances we can get those provisions done.

The Finance Committee amendment would have made this a much better package for stimulating the economy. Extending unemployment insurance, raising the cap on mortgage revenue bonds to help keep people in their homes, and funding the LIHEAP program to help people heat their homes are all timely provisions that offer temporary assistance that precisely targets the people who need this help the most. Putting money into their hands is the most effective way to kick-start our economy in the shortest time possible.

There are a number of reasons it is important that we ultimately approve the extension of much-needed unemployment insurance, which most economists agree is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, dollar for dollar. Workers who receive these unemployment benefits--which could

reach them in as few as 2 weeks from enactment of the stimulus--are likely to spend them quickly, making this one of the fastest ways to infuse money into our economy in the shortterm. In my own State of Michigan, about 145,000 residents have exhausted their unemployment benefits and can't find jobs. Between now and June, 72,000 more people will face the same difficult situation. Extending unemployment insurance during times of recession is nothing new. In the past 30 years, the Congress has acted three times to establish temporary extended unemployment benefits, each time during a recession. Studies indicate that extending unemployment insurance during tough times provides the best return of economic benefits compared to other stimulus options, and this money can be distributed within weeks. Extending unemployment insurance is essential to provide much-needed support to those who have lost their jobs and are struggling to reenter the job market.

To achieve success, the second economic stimulus package now being formulated must also help families stand up against the intensifying wave of housing foreclosures. More than 89,000 Michigan home loans are currently in foreclosure and over 40,000 subprime loans have scheduled rate increases this year. Across the Nation, too many families are at risk of losing their homes, with devastating consequences. Beyond the personal impact, rampant foreclosures can decimate communities. Home ownership is a central tenet of the American dream, but with the number of home foreclosures increasing at an alarming rate, that dream is slipping away from Americans across the country.

I am pleased that the bill we will pass today will increase the loan limits for the Federal Housing Administration, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These are modest moves in the midst of a full-blown crisis, but it is better than nothing.

I am hopeful that soon we can also pass the measure included in the Finance Committee amendment that would have raised the volume cap on State-issued tax-exempt mortgage-revenue bonds by $10 billion. The proceeds from these bonds would allow State and local agencies to provide additional mortgage refinancing options to homeowners so that they could keep their homes. It is critical that we help prevent the further deepening of the foreclosure crisis, keep families in their homes, and protect neighborhoods from the blight which results from large numbers of vacant houses.

On a positive note, I am glad that we have adopted the Senate's improvements to what we are calling a ``tax rebate'' program. This bill will give a tax credit to be sent out as quickly as possible to provide fast cash for many struggling families, thereby ameliorating their hardship at the same time as giving a boost to spending. Today's bill is a package of inclusion, one that recognizes the importance of giving our Nation's aging citizens and disabled veterans their share of stimulus support. These tax rebates will give $600 to individual taxpayers with at least $3,000 of qualifying income, or $1,200 for married couples filing jointly, and an additional $300 for each qualifying child. A prudent stimulus package should not neglect the elderly and disabled veterans, and the tax rebate program we have adopted includes social security and disabled veterans' benefits as qualifying income for the purpose of determining eligibility for the rebate, thereby putting money directly into the hands of some of our nation's neediest some 20 million seniors and 250,000 veterans. Not only will this help these folks attend to their families' most basic needs, but it will further stimulate the economy for the betterment of the whole Nation.

I am also pleased this package includes tax provisions to stimulate small businesses, which are the heart of America's economic strength. It allows small businesses to double the amount they can expense, meaning immediately write off, their taxes for certain capital investments made in 2008 from $125,000 to $250,000. It also provides immediate tax relief for all businesses to invest in new machinery and equipment by speeding up depreciation provisions, so that firms can write off an additional 50 percent depreciation in the first year.

However, given the importance of small businesses' contribution to the economy and to job creation, much more needs to be done to help small businesses find access to credit in this slowing economy. For instance, as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have joined some of my colleagues in calling for a temporary reduction of fees on small business loans to help reverse the recent decline in SBA guaranteed lending to small businesses. I think a temporary reduction in the fees charged to borrowers will put more money in the pockets of small businesses by lowering their monthly loan payments. Equally important is reducing the fees SBA charges lenders because we need to take steps to make lending to small businesses more profitable and thus more appealing so that banks will continue to be willing to make these important loans.

We should also make a one-time enhancement of $10 million to the SBA microloan program's revolving fund to increase credit availability for very small business concerns, especially those who face additional barriers to economic opportunity. The SBA's microloan program provides funding for small-scale business loans, which banks are typically reluctant to service.

When the economy is slowing, the Federal Government should be doing all it can to keep America's small businesses viable so that they can continue to be the economic engine of our economy that they have been in the past. I hope some of these ideas will be included in the longer term stimulus package.

I am also disappointed that this stimulus package does not include the 1-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable energy, which was included in the Senate Finance package. Current law provides a 1.8 cent per kilowatt tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources including wind, solar, and biomass, but this provision will expire at the end of 2008. An effort was made to extend it for 2 years in the energy bill last year, but that effort also failed. This tax credit is critical to many developers of renewable energy projects--without an extension, many projects will be put on hold because they will be less financially viable. With the tax credit, these projects can go forward, and provide both investment in the economy and creation of new jobs.

Failure to approve yesterday's amendment also means that the stimulus package will not include an additional $1 billion for the LIHEAP program, which provides energy assistance to many low-income families. This program has been seriously underfunded for the current fiscal year, and this additional infusion of LIHEAP funding would have put money quickly and directly into the hands of individuals who need it. LIHEAP funds would be spent quickly and immediately, thus stimulating the economy and providing a vital safety net to families and seniors so they do not need to choose between eating and paying their energy bill. In addition to being targeted to those most in need, LIHEAP funding would provide benefits to the economy. Studies have shown that every LIHEAP dollar distributed generates up to five $5 of economic activity. By helping to offset home heating costs, these low-income households will be able to spend money on other vital essentials that will in turn help to stimulate the economy.

Beyond needing to ultimately pass the provisions in the Finance Committee package, it is also important that we take up legislation in the near future to target Federal spending on infrastructure, advanced technology and redevelopment projects that will create jobs. Our long- term economic growth requires investments by the Federal Government to create jobs and help our businesses grow and compete. Infrastructure and advanced technology should be our top priorities. Businesses that are successful are more inclined to hire new workers and expand. In Michigan, we know that success for many of our industries requires good roads, safe bridges, and harbors that are dredged to promote dependable shipping. Immediate Federal spending on infrastructure and dredging projects can put people to work and lay the foundation for future economic growth.

Investments in advanced technology can have similar long-term benefits.

For example, developing the next-generation advanced batteries for hybrid cars could lead to enormous growth of our auto industry. I have proposed public-private partnerships for research and development of a host of technologies that offer much potential for job creation.

No State is struggling more than Michigan in this tough economy, and, unfortunately, evidence is growing by the day to indicate that families and workers all across the Nation are facing tougher economic challenges. I will support this short-term stimulus package as a start, but I will also continue to push for further, stronger efforts to address the problems on a broader level.

Mr. President, the Senate Page Program has been an intregral part of the functioning of the Senate since its inception in 1829. Senate pages are always on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session, helping to ensure that the proceedings in the Chamber run smoothly and efficiently. Pages also are asked to complete a variety of other tasks when the Senate is not in session. We ask a lot of our Senate pages, and they always respond. A page is not only expected to serve the needs of the Senate, which is an important and time-consuming task, but also is expected to attend school and complete the necessary requirements of a high school junior.

Senator Daniel Webster selected the first Senate page. In those days, as is the case today, a page was chosen and sponsored by a Senator. There is a long and fine tradition of pages chosen by Michigan Senators, and I am proud to have sponsored many pages that have ably and responsibly served the Senate.

Sam Wohns, Michigan's most recent Senate page, completed his service as a Senate page last month with dedication and enthusiasm. Sam is a part of a fine tradition and a select group that has had the privilege to serve as a Senate page. He has proven through his hard work in the Senate and through his many successes in the past that he, like many of his peers, are some of our ation's best and brightest. This experience has prepared him well to meet future challenges, as it has for the many that have preceded him.

Each semester the Senate Page School conducts an essay competition. Every page is given the opportunity to

submit an essay that reflects their thoughts about their experience as a page. The winner earns the right to deliver that essay at the closing ceremony for his or her page class. Sam Wohn's essay was selected as the winning essay last month, and it is clear from his essay that this past semester has had a positive and inspirational impact on him and his fellow pages.

It is a distinct honor to be chosen as a Senate page, and the work that this page class has done is valued by all of us in the Senate. I know my colleagues join me in thanking each Senate page for a job well done. I look forward to hearing about their many successes in the future.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of Sam Wohn's speech at the closing ceremony of his page class last month printed in the Congressional Record.

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. President, Monday marked the 1-year anniversary of the tragic death of Mone Little. On January 28, 2007, 19-year-old Mone, granddaughter of late Motown legend and lead singer of The Temptations, David Ruffin, was gunned down in a drive-by shooting while walking with three friends in Detroit. While Mone was not the target, she was the only one in the group who was shot. Those responsible for this heinous crime have not been caught.

Mone, a student at Oakland Community College, was in the process of exploring her dreams. The community continues to grieve the senseless loss of this young woman. Unfortunately, we experience too many of these tragedies. Each year approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by a firearm, an average of 10 children and 74 adults each day.

Many of us continue to urge the Senate to pass sensible gun legislation. Law enforcement officers have requested help in their difficult task of keeping our streets safe. Those that have been personally impacted by gun tragedies have called for change in the hope of protecting others from the pain they have endured.

The American people have a right to expect better protection against gun violence. Until Congress acts, many more lives will be lost. I once again urge my colleagues to take up and pass sensible gun legislation so that we can help prevent such tragedies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, first, let me commend Senator Webb for the leadership on the issue he talked about. I am going to speak very briefly on that same issue--the signing of the statement by the President yesterday--but before I do that, I wish to commend him and the other sponsors of this legislation. It is critically needed. It is long overdue. But for the leadership of Senator Webb and a few other Senators, we would not have had that provision in the bill which was finally signed yesterday.

Yesterday, the President did sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which is essentially the same bill the President vetoed last month. In his signing statement, the President identified a few provisions of the act and stated that they:

Purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the

President's ability to carry out his constitutional

obligations.

The President's statement went on to say that:

The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a

manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the

President.

The specific provisions the President cited relate to a commission to study

and submit reports to Congress on wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cited a provision that enhances the protections from reprisal for contractor employees who disclose evidence of waste, fraud or abuse on Department of Defense contracts. He objected--or at least raised a question--about a requirement for offices within the intelligence community to respond to written requests from the chairman or ranking member of the Armed Services Committees for intelligence assessments, reports, estimates or legal opinions within 45 days, unless the President asserts a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States; and he also made reference to at least a limitation on the use of funds appropriated pursuant to the act to establish a military base or installation for the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq.

Now, I understand the President's statement did not say these specific provisions or any other provisions of the act are unlawful, nor that the executive branch would not implement these provisions. I also understand similar statements have been included in signing statements on a number of laws by this President and that those statements did not result in the refusal to enforce the law as written.

Nevertheless, I believe it is important to come to the floor as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to express the view that Congress has a right to expect the administration will faithfully implement all the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008--not just the ones the President happens to agree with.

As I noted at the outset, the President vetoed an earlier version of this act which contained the same specific provisions he singled out in his signing statement yesterday. The President did not choose to exercise his veto over those provisions and, as a result, they have not changed in any way whatsoever in the version of the bill the President chose to sign. With his signature, these provisions become the law of the land. Congress and the American people have a right to expect the administration will now faithfully carry them out.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 90 minutes, with the time equally divided.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Michigan Technological University's recent decision to offer in State tuition to the children or spouse of anyone on active military duty, regardless of their State of residence, deserves our recognition and praise.

We are all deeply indebted to our men and women in uniform for their bravery and sacrifice. Michigan Tech is expressing thanks and showing support for the families of those serving in our armed services in a way that will make a real difference.

While out-of-State students at Michigan Tech pay over $21,000 for tuition, in State tuition is less than $10,000 each year. This savings will be available to the families of the 1.3 million men and women who are on Active Duty in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines, Navy, National Guard and Reserve, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and United States Public Health Service Corps. We believe that Michigan Tech is the first college or university in the Nation to extend in State tuition to the families of all military personnel serving on Active Duty.

The idea developed after an applicant to a State university in Michigan received an admission offer but was denied in State tuition even though he graduated from a Michigan high school. His father was serving on Active Duty and had been stationed in Michigan but was moved out-of-State,

prompting the tuition decision. Michigan Tech's new policy would allow this student, along with many others, to receive in State tuition if admitted. Hopefully this decision will be followed by other colleges and universities as well.

The university's fight song, ``Fight Tech, Fight!'' includes the line: ``From Northern hills we'll sound our cry, we'll ring your praises to the sky!'' This is an important decision by Michigan Tech that deserves praise and, from the hills of Michigan's upper peninsula, it is a decision that will undoubtedly be heard and appreciated by military families across the country and our brave men and women stationed around the world.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``United Nations Development Program in North Korea: A Case Study.'' In early 2007, reports surfaced of significant management failures in the operations of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in North Korea. Several months later, the UNDP took the unprecedented step of suspending its North Korean operations. The Subcommittee's hearing will examine UNDP operations in North Korea, reviewing such issues as inappropriate staffing, inadequate administrative and fiscal controls, inaccessible audits and insufficient whistleblower safeguards. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives of the Department of State and the Government Accountability Office. The Subcommittee will also receive a public briefing from representatives of the United Nations. A final witness list will be available Tuesday, January 22, 2008.

The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, January 24, 2008, at 10 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

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

Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to vote on the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

The bill before us today is the same bill we passed by a 90-to-3 vote a little more than a month ago, except for minor changes.

This bill will provide essential pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform. It includes a 3.5-percent pay raise for the troops.

It includes the Wounded Warrior Act, the greatest reform in the law relative to medical care for our troops in more than a decade. It will address the substandard living conditions, poor outpatient care and bureaucratic roadblocks and delays faced by injured soldiers. These provisions will dramatically improve the management of medical care, disability evaluations, personnel actions, and the quality of life for service members recovering from illness or injuries incurred while performing their military duties and begin the process of fundamental reform of DOD and VA disability evaluation systems.

The Wounded Warrior Act will require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work together to develop a comprehensive policy on the care, management, and transition of severely injured service members, including Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve members, from the military to the Veterans Administration or to civilian life. It will require the use of a single medical examination where appropriate, and require and fund the establishment of centers of excellence for the signature wounds of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

To improve the disability evaluation system, the bill will require the military departments to use VA standards when making disability determinations, authorizing deviation from these standards only when it will result in a higher disability rating for the service member, and will require the services to take into account all medical conditions that render a member unfit for duty.

The bill will also increase the severance pay for military personnel who are separated for medical disability with a disability rating of less than 30 percent and will eliminate the requirement that this severance pay be deducted from VA disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone or combat-related operation.

The bill also includes essential management reforms for the Department of Defense, including the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007. Some of the reforms included are: establishment of a defense acquisition workforce development fund to ensure that DOD has the people and the skills needed to effectively manage its contracts; strengthening of statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD contracts; and tightening of the rules for DOD acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements. These and other provisions should go a long way toward addressing the contracting waste, fraud and abuse that we have seen altogether too frequently in recent years.

Our legislation will also address a major failure in Iraq--the failure to exercise control over private security contractors. It will require for the first time that private security contractors hired by the State Department and other Federal agencies to work in a war zone comply with directives and orders issued by our military commanders as well as with DOD regulations.

On December 17, 2007, we sent the defense authorization act to the President for his signature. The following weekend, the White House staff notified us that they had identified a problem with one provision that would lead the President to veto the bill. While the administration had previously expressed concerns about this provision, no administration official had ever indicated that the President would consider a veto. Quite the opposite, this provision was not on the list of potential veto-causing problems.

I remain disappointed by the administration's failure to work with us to address this provision until after the bill had passed both Houses of Congress and was sent to the President for signature. It does not serve anybody's interest when we fail to address issues like this in a timely manner. The veto of the National Defense Authorization Act sent the wrong message to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at a time when many of them are risking their lives on a daily basis in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

I am pleased that we have been able to work out language to address the administration's concerns on a bicameral and bipartisan basis. The bill that is before us today contains modifications that have been agreed upon by the White House and by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. I understand that these changes are also acceptable to Senator Lautenberg and other Members who worked with him to put together the provision in the earlier bill.

Let me briefly explain the White House's problem, and how we have addressed it.

Section 1083 of the bill clarifies the law that permits U.S. nationals and members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are victims of terrorist acts to sue state sponsors of terrorism for damages resulting from terrorist acts in the U.S. courts. The provision also strengthens mechanisms to ensure that victims of terrorism can collect on their judgments against such State sponsors of terrorism. U.S. courts have previously entered such judgments against Iran, Libya, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

After the bill was passed and sent to the President for signature, the administration informed us that Iraq currently has more than $25 billion of assets in this country that could be tied up in litigation if section 1083 were enacted into law and that such restrictions on Iraq's funds could take months to lift. The White House stated that restrictions on Iraqi funds would interfere with political and economic progress in Iraq and undermine our relations with Iraq.

We have addressed these concerns with new language which authorizes the President to waive the applicability of section 1083 to Iraq, if he determines that a waiver is in the national security interest of the United States; that the waiver will promote Iraqi reconstruction, the consolidation of democracy in Iraq, and U.S. relations with Iraq; and that Iraq continues to be a reliable ally of the United States and a partner in combating international terrorism.

The revised language also expresses the sense of Congress that the President, acting through the Secretary of State, should work with the Government of Iraq on a state-to-state basis to ensure compensation for any meritorious claims based on terrorist acts

committed by the Saddam Hussein regime that cannot be addressed in the U.S. courts due to a Presidential waiver.

We expect that the Department of State will actively pursue such compensation from Iraq.

As one of the authors of the new section 1083, I want to assure the Senate that the new language authorizes the waiver of section 1083, only as it applies to Iraq. The new subsection (d), which we have added to the bill, specifies that the President may waive any provision of section 1083 ``with respect to Iraq'' and not with regard to any other country. We explicitly reaffirm in this bill that other cases against state sponsors of terrorism, including both Iran and Libya, may proceed to judgment and collection under section 1083, unaffected by any Presidential waiver.

Over the last 2 weeks, concerns have been expressed about the possible impact of this provision on innocent third parties entering joint ventures with Libya or Iran. The concern was that these companies would find their own property seized to satisfy judgments against those countries. Our language does not allow for that result, because that is not our intent. This is not a new issue: the question has been raised by the language of the Lautenberg amendment ever since it was first approved by the Senate last fall.

We specifically addressed the problem of joint ventures in our conference on the Defense authorization bill, previously approved by the Congress. We added language to the bill making it clear that the courts are authorized to compensate victim of state-sponsored terrorism out of Libya's--or other states'--assets, while separating and shielding the assets of companies engaged in joint ventures with those States. In the accompanying statement of managers, we specifically urged the courts to make use of this authority. This language was the strongest action that we could take to protect innocent third parties without also shielding the offending governments from liability for their own actions.

We have included a provision to ensure that the statement of managers on our previous conference report will apply to this new bill in this and all regards.

Outside of the modification of section 1083, the bill remains virtually unchanged. We have, however, taken steps to ensure our men and women in uniform will not lose a penny as a result of the delayed enactment of this bill. Toward that end, we have revised a number of provisions in the bill to make pay increases and bonus provisions retroactive to January 1 and avoid any gap in these authorities. These changes have been worked out with the Department of Defense and agreed to by the two Armed Services Committees on a bipartisan basis.

Other than these few changes, the bill before us today is identical to the conference report that the Senate overwhelmingly passed last month. It is my hope that the bill will receive similar support when we vote on it again later today.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Would the Senator from Alaska yield for a unanimous consent request?

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. 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. 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.