we've learned that in the past. dueling amendments doesn't do the trick. the issue is pronounced. it's here before us. and we went a step further. in the past we haven't paid for this. we have five times, president bush -- signed bills, extended benefits, not paid for. again, madam president, we've done a good job of reducing the debt. we have a lot more we can do, but we've reduced it almost $3 trillion already. the issue is now before us, are we going to extend benefits for people who have been unemployed for a long time? that's the question. we bent over backwards to try to come up with a compromise, a bipartisan piece of legislation, and, i repeat, it's paid for with a paul ryan pairvetion -- l ryan pay-for.

there are structural changes. nothing is ever quite good enough. they always want more amendments. they always want amendments, but the issue is here before us: are -- is this body going to vote to extend unemployment benefits, paid for -- paid for with pie ryan's pay-for and with structural changes? or are they going to change their back on people who are desperate? mr. coats: madam president, could i ask the majority leader to yield for just one question. you just said this body gets nowhere without -- by offering amendment. does this mean that throughout this year it's worthless, meaningless for republicans to offer any amendments to any bill to try to make improvement or to try to have their voice heard or the voice of the people i represent in indiana heard on this floor? mr. reid: madam president, my friend from indiana is one of those senators who used to be here when the good ol' times were here. we didn't have gotcha amendments

there. every amendment offered, with rare exception is a gotcha amendment. that isn't what we do here. i have been waiting since monday to get pay-fors as to how we can extend unemployment benefits. they come up with stuff that doesn't even extend for three months' worth of extensions. so amendments are important, but they have to be -- mr. president, i think we have to go back to the time when senator coats was here the first time and start working together to get things done in this body. mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, this is 100% difference from the time i was here the first time. we were able to offer any amendment to any bill at any time, and the majority leader, both republicans and democrats, allowed us to do that. this is the first time i've had the experience of not being able to offer an amendment. i think i heard the majority leader object, but i didn't -- i wasn't sure. did he object to my unanimous consent request? mr. reid: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the objection was heard. mr. reid: mr. president, i was there, just like my friend. the things were different then. they certainly were, because we didn't have hundreds of filibusters take place. the filibuster was something that was used rarely. in those days would you ever have filibustered a secretary of defense or all the other cabinet officers? of course you would not have. and that's why action had to be taken. but my republican friends have to realize that filibuster is not a right; it is a privilege. it's been abused. so my friend can lecture me -- i'm happy to listen to his many lectures -- but i was here. i know how things used to work. what has gone over o on the pase years would never have taken place in those years? mr. mcconnell: the majority leader brings up the secretary of defense frequently. was the secretary of defense defeated or confirmed? mr. reid: no, he was only

delayed while we had two wars going on in this country. mr. mcconnell: has a member of a president's cabinet every been defeated in the history of the senate? mr. reid: mr. president, no -- in fact what has happened, and we find this with the judges, they sphawl stall for weeks, months and sometimes years. when the vote comes it's pretty good but in the meantime they've done damage to this institution and our country by stalling and making it so the president of the united states has a very difficult time doing his job because he doesn't have his people there when he needs them. mr. mcconnell: i would ask my friend from -- the majority leader, is what he finds offensive the fact that there are debates about these matters? since none of these members are being defeated, what is the issue here? i'm having a hard time understanding. is it the fact that there's controversy, that there's debate? is he also suggesting that we have no controversy about anybody who is sent up by the te

president of the united states? mr. reid: of course that is a question that is a great big soft ball. of course not. we need debate. we need good, strong debate about nominations and everything else. what we don't need is hours and days and weeks and months of obstruction. that's what we have here. my friend, the republican leader, is picturing to everyone within the sound of his voice something that doesn't exist. there has been obstruction that has been carried to an extent that no one ever dreamed would happen in this great republic. that's what the objection is is. the objection is to obstruction. time after time. was it only a debate, mr. president, when my republican colleagues decided that the d.c. circuit -- some say the most important court in this country, even some say more

important than the supreme court -- when they decided there were vacatvie can't seatsvacant seate years hold up the debate. that's obstruction. if you turned to theddiction neared and loo -- if turned to e dictionary and looked up obstruction texaobject,it would. mr. mcconnell: prior to the decision of the majority leader changing the rules of the senate, is it not the case that 215 of president barack obama's judges had been confirmed and only two had been defeated? mr. reid: mr. president, during the time we have been a country -- and i don't know how long that is -- there have been 23 district court nominees filibustered. 23. 2020620 of them have been durine

obama administration. that example is throughout the government. this is, mr. president, so -- the american people know what is taking place in this body. you can try to paint over a picture that things are just fine. there has been stalling, obstruction that is untoward, never considered. now, i just can't imagine how my republican colleagues can justify what they've done. but they do, and i accept that. but i also, mr. president -- we have an issue before this body -- again they're trying to divert the ateption and go to what are the amendments, what are the rules. the issue before this body is whether long-term unemployed get an extension of their benefits. as we speak, there are people all over this country who are

desperate to be able to get $300 a week to be able to survive for another week, hoping they'll find a job. the sad part about that, my friends say, we need to do something about making sure that these people fill these vacant jobs. there are lots of places people can find work. for every job opening there are three people that are unemployed trying to find a job. so i have a answered the question to the best of the of my ability. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you. mr. reid: the senator from indiana had a consent -- he asked consent. so she's going to do it. i just wanted my friend from indiana to know that i wasn't trying to object to something that he has a right to do. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, let me just say

that i share in the comments of my colleague from indiana and my colleague from ohio. the three of us voted in good faith to debate this bill, and i did so because i thought that we should try to debate this issue that both sides, if they had an idea about how to pay for this in a responsible way, that we should bring it afford. and so when i hear the majority leader say that i've been waiting since montana ... well, filed an amendment on tuesday and that amendment is straightforward. that settlement i amendment a it would fix fraud in our tax code, that came to light in 2011 in a treasury i.g. report. what it would require is those who seek the additional child tax credit, to file a social security number u and why is that? because the investigations of

this refund, tax refund that people receive, found that they were claiming it for people who, number one, were basically not authorized to work in this country were claiming it and, secondly is, but for children that may not even exist. investigations found that children that don't even live in this country. and so a commonsense amendment that by the way, would it pay for it? yeah, it would pay for three months of unemployment insurance for american workers and for this issue that we have before this chamber. it would pay for to fix the military retirement cuts to the cola that also impacted our wounded warriors that were done in the most recent budget that were unfair, that members of both sides of the aisle have come together to say we should fix and agree it is unfair. what else would it do? it would reduce the deficit. what i hear from the majority leader is, well, that idea,

we've theard before. well, we may have heard it before but we've not been allowed a vote on it. are they so fraid of having a vote on something like this that the people of new hampshire that i represent can't get a vote? on trying to fix abuse in our tax code, on trying to solve this issue pending on the floor and to pay for it so we don't add to our $17 trillion in debt? and, by the way, is it so unreasonable -- i happened to find a letter from a member of the democratic conference who, after the treasury i.g. report was issued that i'm citing here, was equally concerned as i am about this abuse in our tax code. in fact, described it as "improper payments." said that it seemed reasonable to presume that unauthorized workers weren't eligible for this tax credit. and called on the commissioner of the i.r.s. -- this is a respected member of the democrat conference who expressed concerns about it.

and that member said, we need to stop these unauthorized payments immediately. and that was in 2011. and we can't even get a vote on this? wwe can reasonably disagree but the only way we can express these disagreements is to be allowed to vote and to be able to represent our states angz to get votes on amendments. so with that, i would ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment 2603. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. boxer: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from cavmen california. mrs. boxer: talk about fiddling while rome burns. if you are one of the 1 .3 million people in this country -- 222,000 in my state -- whose house is burning down because they're going to lose the safety net of $300 a week to feed their family, to take care of their

kids, to heat their homes -- and my colleague talks about letters? i'll tell but a letter i got from a woman who says her thermostat is at 55 degrees and she's got a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old. and all they do on that side is complain that their amendments, they're so important. 24 of them. and they know they're all partisan. we're trying to work on a bipartisan solution. and you know what? somebody explain to me why the republicans never objected to extending unemployment so many times when george w. bush was president. not a one. it was fine. so do we make economic policy by who's in the white house or by the needs of our peemg? people? now, this idea of going after children is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard, and i'm shocked. i am shocked.

you're going to hurt chirchlt you're going to a way food out of their mouth mouth. it is outrage owssments if there are abuses, i say to my friend, put those people in jail. you know, if there was one corrupt senator here and there could be or there might be and there was in the past, and every one of us got painted with that brush, which you did in your speech is to tank every poor child. who happens to benefit from that credit. let us not go down that partisan route. let us support our leader. and let us work through the weekend to come up with a plan. i think the majority leader has one. and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i would say, first of all, one of six republicans

to debate this bill, to solve this problem, and i can't get a vote, if the senator from california objects to this amendment. then why don't we vote on it? and, you know, this is nothing unless you're trying to protect children that may not exist or you're trying to protect children who don't live in the united states of america. and this is about protecting abuse within the tax code, which, again, i have a letter from a member of her caucus who recognized this problem as well based on a treasury i.g. report done during this administration. this is -- amendment is about protecting the american taxpayer and the american taxpayer needs some protection in this body when it comes to tax fraud. and let me just say that we need to be able to have votes on

behalf of our states, on behalf of the american people, and if we disagree, let's vote them down. i don't -- i don't see what the issue is there unless -- unless you're worried that it's going to pass because it just makes too much sense. bit i do have a parliamentary -- but i do have a parliamentary inquiry. is it correct that no senator is permitted to offer an amendment to the unemployment insurance bill while the majority leader's motion to commit with instructions with further amendments is pending? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. ms. ayotte: i have a further parliamentary inquiry. if a motion to table the reid motion to commit with a further amendment is successful, would there still be reid amendments pending that would prevent me from offering my amendment or any of my colleagues from offering the amendments that they have that would pay for this, which would improve it, which would try to address the problems that we are supposed to be debating on this floor? the presiding officer: the senator is correct.

mrs. a yoltms. ayotte: mr. presi have an important amendment and that amendment would be one that fixes abuse within the tax code that has been identified by a treasury i.g. report and subsequent investigations. it is one that would pay for this three-month unemployment extension for american workers, those who are struggling to find work. it is an amendment that would fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees and our wounded warriors. and it is an amendment that being concerned about the $1 $17 trillion of debt and what it will do to the future of this country for -- for our children, that would reduce the deficit as well. and i would ask for a vote on my amendment, amendment 2603, but, mr. president, with that important amendment that i would like the senate to vote on, in order for the senate to start

considering these amendments that my colleagues have talked about -- and i hope amendments on the other side of the aisle that we should be voting on -- including my amendment 2603, i move to table the pending reid motion to commit with instructions and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to cast their vote or to change their vote? seeing none on this measure, the yeas are 42, the nays are 54. the motion to table is not agreed to. mr. reid: move to reconsider. lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

majority leader. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the nomination of robert leon wilkins to be a united states circuit judge for the district of columbia. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, there were 53 yeas and 41 nays, and the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not ip voked on the wilkins nomination. mr. president? the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the next votes be ten minutes in duration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the motion to reconsider. the yeas and nays were ordered.

and the clerk will call the roll. you you vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: do any members wish to change their votes?

are there any other members who wish to vote? that said, the yeas are 54, the nays are 40. the motion to reconsider is passed. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the -- mr. reid: this will be the last vote. the next vote will be monday at 5:30. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: this will be the last vote today. the next vote will be monday at 5:30. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of robert leon wilkins of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit, shall be

brought to a close, upon reconsideration? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all members been recorded? are there any members wishing to change their votes? if not, then the yeas are 55, the nays are 38. one senator responded present. upon reconsideration, the motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, robert leon wilkins of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia

circuit. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to proceed as though in morning business for 15 minutes, but prior to that that i be able to yield to senator reed of rhode island for five minutes and that that not be counted against my time, and that i then be recognized after he is done. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senator from michigan is recognized -- the senator from michigan has yielded to the gentleman -- to the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senator from michigan and my chairmaned on the armed services committee. i simply want to make a few comments about this afternoon's proceedings with respect to unemployment insurance. the reason we were here -- and we can't lose sight of it -- is that 1.3 million americans, as of december 28, lost their extended unemployment benefits. they are without the support, modest support, roughly $300 to

$350 a week. every week, 70,000 more americans lose their support. we are going to see this number grow and grow and grow and grow while we talk and talk and talk. along with senator heller, we proposed a very straightforward mechanism. 90 days of the extension and picking retroactively up those who had lost it, unpaid for so that we could work on some of the difficult issues that my colleagues have all explored this afternoon. and in listening to my colleagues, we made the determination that there was a sincere concern and desire on the part of my republican colleagues particularly that any extension of benefits be paid for. now, most frequently, we don't pay for these benefits. we have on occasion, but most

times we considered emergency spending, we go ahead and authorize the payments, and we don't offset them, but the concern was raised repeatedly and very strenuously that these benefits should be paid for. and also there are several proposals to do that. and so working closely with my colleagues, we considered that the best approach for it was not simply to bring up the reed-heller amendment, the 90 days, but to respond as best we could to these concerns. and so the provision we brought up today is fully offset, but it goes beyond 90 days because the simple logic was going through the travail of finding pay-fors is not something you want to do every 90 days. it's something that you should do seriously but for as long as possible. and so our provision would be able to carry these benefits through to the middle of

november, and it required finding offsets. the other thing we heard from our republican colleagues is that you shouldn't use any revenue, no tax provisions. now, in the democratic caucus, we have seen this bill come up so many times, under republican presidents, democratic presidents, completely unpaid for, but also in terms of seriously and thoughtfully balancing the way we pay for provisions here, we have many times suggested, which i think is common sense, well, let's have a mix of revenue and other provisions, spending provisions. let's do that. 50-50 or some combination, some fair combination. and, in fact, the american people, i think, would see that as the most sensible approach to doing the work of government. but once again, we yielded to the perceptions and the demands,

in many respects, that there would be no tax provisions in this bill. as a result, we have to look for a series of pay-fors that didn't involve spending. that was a deliberate attempt to reach across and say we hear you. you want it fully paid for, you want no spending, you want provisions that will not involve revenue, and so we proposed a major provision, an extension of the mandatory sequestration that was included in the budget agreement that got overwhelming support here in the senate for an additional year, which gained us roughly -- and these are rough figures -- about $17 billion. and then we took one of the provisions that was offered by my colleague, senator portman, who had been working very assiduously and very thoughtfully on these issues

with respect to the double collection of both ssdi benefits and unemployment combination benefits. we tried to focus it and make it narrow. it resulted in a billion dollars, giving us sufficient funds to carry this program through, if we voted today, starting as soon as the house passed it, all the way to the middle of november. and that is where we are today. now, we still are open to alternatives to try to deal with this issue. i know many of my colleagues on the democratic side have a long list of revenue provisions. in fact, the chairman, chairman levin, has through his work had a list of what many would call, many americans egregious loopholes that corporations enjoy, but, you know, certainly there are other ways to pay for it. but we're still trying to work through this. we are still trying to find a

bipartisan approach to deal with the issue of the moment, the crisis of the moment, and that is 1.4 million today and growing americans who worked hard, through no fault of their own lost their job, who are struggling to get by with a modest $300 or $350 a week. now, one final point. this is a crisis of the moment. i know some of my colleagues are talking about some issues, for example the issue of military pensions that doesn't become effective, as i understand it, until 2015, and there are other ways to deal with this, but that is a fair position to advance at any time, and i have great sympathy for that position, but i would hate to see other issues, systemic reform of our training programs,

comprehensive, which takes time, effort and focused attention by committees typically, i would hate to see those issues essentially prevent response to the immediate crisis of people who are without jobs, who are looking desperately and now don't have very modest support to pay for their rent, pay for their heat, provide some -- some support to their families. we're still engaged. we will have a vote monday. i hope we can succeed on that procedural vote but regardless we're going to come back and back and back because this number of americans growing each week by 70,000 approximately needs our response, not just our comments here on the floor of the senate. with that let me thank the chairman and yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: the current situation in iraq is deeply disturbing. the violence there is a human tragedy and the resurgence of al qaeda affiliated forces in fallujah and elsewhere represents a threat not just to the people of iraq but to our own security and to that of our friends and allies in the region. so i very much share in concerns many of us have expressed about recent developments in iraq. the united states has announced it will expedite military assistance including delivery of unmanned aerial vehicles and hellfire missiles and that is appropriate. the administration has stepped up intelligence sharing to help iraq's security forces in their fight. that is appropriate. the administration is holding ongoing conversations with iraq about other ways in which the united states might assist, and that is appropriate. one form of that assistance that

one might take is the sale of weapons such as attack helicopters to iraq. the issue here is not whether such aircraft would help iraq fight violent extremists. it would. the question is whether the malequity government -- maliki government would use those against violent extremists and whether we would receive assurance it's such weapons would be used to target iraq's real enemies and not to further sectarian political objectives. it would be appropriate to provide such assistance. but what it is wrong to do is to blame the obama administration for the political failures of iraqi leaders. blaming the administration for failures and decisions by the iraqi government ignores not only history, it also leads to policy approaches that would not

be in our interest or the interest of the iraqi people. for example, here is what senator mccain and senator graham said recently -- quote -- "when president obama withdrew all u.s. forces from iraq in 2011, over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by america's enemies and would emerge as a threat to u.s. national security interests and sadly, they said, that reality is now clearer than ever" -- close quote. now, that argument ignores some important history. first, it ignores the fact that the 2011 withdrawal date for u.s. forces in iraq was not set by president obama but by president bush. in december of 2008, just before he left office, president bush signed an agreement with the iraqi government that called for the withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraqi cities in 2009 and the

complete withdrawal of u.s. forces by the end of 2011. president bush himself standing next to prime minister malequity in -- maliki in baghdad said -- quote -- "the agreement lays out a freamwork for the withdrawal of u.s. forces in iraq" -- close quote. so the withdrawal date was set by president bush, not by president obama. as to whether our military commanders objected to our withdrawal from iraq, here is what happened: while there was no mention from president bush or prime minister maliki when they announced their agreement of a u.s. troop presence after 2011, secretary gates and others discussed the possibility of some forces remaining in iraq after 2011. and then during 2011 the obama

administration entered into negotiations with the iraqi government with the goal of keeping some u.s. troops in limited roles in iraq to assist iraqi security forces after the 2011 withdrawal date set by president bush. i and many other members of congress supported the idea of continuing a smaller, specialized u.s. military assistance force. while there was disagreement in the administration over the size of a residual force, what the -- what decided the issue wasn't how many troops would remain. rather, it was the iraqi government's refusal to agree to legal protections for u.s. troops, whatever their number. and in the absence of such protections, it was the opinion of our military leaders that no u.s. forces should remain in

iraq regardless of whether the number was 3,500 or 20,000. at a november, 2011 armed services committee hearing, i asked general dempsey, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, about the importance of legal protections for our troops as part of any agreement to keep troops in iraq after 2011. and this is what the questions and answers were. senator levin: are you willing to have those forces remain without an agreement relative to immunity for those troops? general dempsey, no, sir, i'm not. it was the recommendation, advice and strong belief of the joint chiefs that that we should not leave service men and women there without protections. senator levin: why is that? general dempsey, because of the men institutions in iraq that are evolving and immature. the iraqi judicial system is among those he said, and we did

not believe it was appropriate or prudent to leave service men and women without judicial protections in a country that still had the challenges we know it has and a very immature judicial system, close quote. later in that same hearing i asked general dempsey if our commanders on the ground in iraq shared that opinion. and he responded -- quote -- "it was the topic of many secure video teleconferences and engagements person to person. i can state that they also believed we needed the protections. both general austin and general mattis in order to leave our troops there" -- close quote. and before our committee in february of 2013 general austin, our commander on the ground in iraq during the 2011 negotiations, testified that there were extensive discussions with iraq about a continuing u.s. troop presence, and he testified -- quote -- "we worked

with the iraqi leadership all the way up to the point in time when they decided they weren't going to be able to give us the protections that we needed to keep our troops there" -- close quote. and as general -- as secretary panetta put it before our committee, the key moment in the negotiations was -- quote -- "once the iraqis made the decision that they were not going to provide any immunities for any level of force that we would have there" -- close quote. so, mr. president, our military leaders were very much unwilling to leave u.s. forces on the ground in iraq if they could be subjected to the vicissitudes of the iraqi judicial system it is a and it is therefore wrong wrong to say that the withdrawal took place -- quote -- "over the objections off our military leaders close quote.

it was iraq's refusal to grant protection to our troops that decided the matter. now, this criticism of the administration's iraq policy also understates the importance of factors that have come to the forefront since the 2011 withdrawal. foremost among these has been an iraqi government that has repeatedly pursued a sectarian agenda, disenfranchised sunni iraqis, failed to address kurdish concerns over the status of kirkuk and the hydrocarbons law and ail interred moderate shia iraqis who seek a more democratic and inclusive government. prime minister maliki's forthfalls have stoked the tensions on which al qaeda and other extremist groups capitalize. many members of vo congress have made it clear it is extremely difficult to support more robust

assistance to the iraqi government unless the iraqi leadership places the good of their country ahead of sectarian politics and unless it produces a practical strategy for governing iraq on a more inclusive and less sectarian basis. for example, last october, i joined five other colleagues, senators mccain, menendez, corker, inhofe and graham, in writing to president obama preas expressing our concern about deteriorating conditions in iraq and i ask unanimous consent that our october 29, 2013 letter to the president be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: written in our letter we supported an increase in support for iraq's counterterrorism efforts, but we made clear that the iraqi government must provide a practical plan for using such aid and provide assurances relative to who advanced weapons

would be used against. we wrote the president, president obama as follows -- quote -- it is in our national security interest to enhance the effectiveness of iraq's security forces, especially through greater intelligence sharing. however, we must see more evidence from prime minister maliki that u.s. security assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive iraqi strategy that addresses the political sources of the current violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country. close quote. we further wrote the following "this leads us to the final and most important point we urge you to stress with prime minister maliki. if he implements a real governance strategy for iraq, the united states is ready to provide the appropriate support to help that strategy sceez succeed and if prime minister maliki continues to marginalize

the kurds, alienate many shia, treat large numbers of sunnis as terrorists, no amount of security assistance will be able to bring stability and security to iraq." it is a tragedy for the iraqi people and a real security concern for the united states that prime minister maliki has yet to produce a strategy for broadly based governance in iraq. we should not forget the 2011 withdrawal date for american troops in iraq was negotiated by president bush. we should not forget the digs decision to reject an ongoing u.s. troop presence after 2011 was iraq's because of iraq's refusal to assure us that our troops would have protections from iraqi courts and prosecution. we should not forget that our military leaders supported the decision not to leave our troops in iraq without legal protections from iraqi

prosecution and we should not forget while an ongoing relationship is in our interest, no amount of military equipment from us will protect the iraqi people if their government continues to place sectarian goals ahead of sound governance. so we should use opportunities to assist iraq in its struggle against violent extremism and for stability and security but iraq's fate ultimately res. with its people and their leaders. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe we've got two democratic speakers and perhaps i'm due to speak next and i think senator murkowski is next and i'm not sure any other speakers are expected but i would ask consent when i conclude my remarks senator murkowski of alaska are

recognized. -- be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i've been honored to serve with senator levin on the armed services committee, and he does an excellent job, and he's spent a lot of time and many hours working to try to help us be successful in iraq and other areas of national defense. and i think general dempsey and austin were right to say we could not keep our troops there unless they had immunity from local productions -- prosecutions but as i recall the net feeling about the president's decision to withdraw from continued negotiations on this contentious issue, the

military felt that this was not wise, at least many of them did, and they believed had we continued to pursue negotiations, we may have been able to reach the kind of agreement that would allow us to help the iraqi government to be stable and successful. pulling out as we did always seemed to me to be too rapid, too precipitous and created dangers that could place at risk which our soldiers fought and died for. and i do believe that is what wt happened. and it's a tragic thing. i was in fallujah not long after that bitter battle. we lost hundreds wounded and almost a hundred killed and the marines performed with such valor and courage it was one of the great, c