Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Judge Marcia Morales Howard, nominated to the Middle District of Florida, has the bipartisan support of both Florida Senators. With valuable experience as a Federal magistrate judge and as a former civil litigator, Judge Howard is well versed in litigation matters in Federal court. Judge Howard graduated from Vanderbilt University with a B.S. in 1987, and received her J.D. with honors in 1990, from the University of Florida, College of Law, where she served as Symposium Editor for the Florida Law Review. As a litigator in private practice, Judge Howard worked mostly on complex civil litigation matters in Federal court as an Associate with the law firm of Foley and Lardner, and later worked on labor and employment law cases as an Associate, and then Partner, at the law firm of McGuireWoods, LLP. Judge Howard has also shown her dedication to serving others by providing pro bono legal services through the Jacksonville Area Legal Aid and pro bono seminars through the Jacksonville Center for Independent Living to disabled individuals informing them of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I understand that Judge Howard is a first generation Cuban-American. She is being called upon to fill a position in one of the fastest growing areas in Florida. Senator Nelson has been a strong supporter of this nomination and has pressed for early action. I thank both Senators from Florida for their interest in this nomination. I also understand that Judge Howard's grandfather celebrated his 100th birthday just 2 weeks ago, on February 1. Her confirmation today is testimony to the great promise that America holds for people from all parts of the world, that the granddaughter of someone who came to America can become a Federal judge. I congratulate the nominee and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for tribal programs.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business. Agenda Legislation 1. S. 4, Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007; 2. S. 343, a bill to extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999; 3. S. 457, a bill to extend the date on which the National Security Personnel System will first apply to certain defense laboratories; 4. S. 550, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Post Office Naming Bills 1. S. 171, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, Oklahoma, as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office Building;'' 2. S. 194/H.R. 49, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as the ``Gerald R. Ford Jr. Post Office Building;'' 3. S. 219/H.R. 335, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 152 North 5th Street in Laramie, Wyoming, as the ``Gale W. McGee Post Office;'' 4. S. 303, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 324 Main Street in Grambling, Louisiana, as the ``Coach Eddie Robinson Post Office Building;'' 5. S. 412/H.R. 521, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building;'' 6. H.R. 433, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 1700 Main Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Scipio A. Jones Post Office Building;'' 7. H.R. 514, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 16150 Aviation Loop Drive in Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Sergeant Lea Robert Mills Brooksville Aviation Branch Post Office;'' 8. H.R. 577, to designate the facility of the USPS located at 3903 South Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas, as the ``Sergeant Henry Ybarra III Post Office Building.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Administration's 2007 Trade Agenda.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the President's proposed budget for FY 2008 for the Department of the Interior.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the administration's proposal to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed sessions to receive testimony on the current and future readiness of the Army and Marine Corps.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, the Judiciary Committee reached a bipartisan consensus to reverse recent changes to the law governing appointments of interim U.S. attorneys. These changes were made, with little transparency, during final negotiations of the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Through my staff, I had objected at the time, but to no avail. These changes invited and abetted an apparent abuse of power by this administration that threatens to undermine the effectiveness and professionalism of U.S. attorneys offices around the country. I continue to support Senator Feinstein's efforts to combat these abuses. I thank Senator Schumer for chairing our hearing into this matter last week and Senator Specter for his active involvement, which helped lead to a bipartisan solution. I urge the Senate to follow the committee's lead and approve the Specter, Feinstein, Leahy substitute to S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007. During the Patriot Act reauthorization last year, checks on the authority of the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to fill a vacancy temporarily were removed. The change to the law removed the 120-day limit for such appointments and removed the district court's role in making any subsequent interim appoints. This change in law, accomplished over my objection, allowed the Attorney General for the first time to make so-called interim appointments that could last indefinitely. Regrettably, we do not have to imagine the effects of this unfettered authority. We learned recently that the Department of Justice has asked several outstanding U.S. attorneys from around the country to resign their positions. Some are engaged in difficult and complex public corruption cases. Yesterday, one of the U.S. attorneys who has been told to resign, Carol Lam of the Southern District of California, announced two indictments stemming from her office's investigation of now-convicted former Congressman Randall ``Duke'' Cunningham. A Federal grand jury handed up indictments of San Diego defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes for bribery and of Wilkes and the former No. 3 official at the CIA, Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo, for conspiring to defraud the United States. Apparently, Ms. Lam's reward for her efforts at rooting out serious public corruption is a pink slip. We also understand the Attorney General has or is planning to appoint interim replacements for the U.S. attorneys he is removing, raising a potential of avoiding the Senate confirmation process altogether. This is an end-run around our system of checks and balances. Many Senators have raised concerns about this practice, and several have asked the Attorney General about the reasons for the interim appointments. The situation in Arkansas highlights the troubling nature of this new authority and its abuse. The Attorney General removed respected U.S. attorney Bud Cummins and replaced him with the interim appointment of Tim Griffin, a former political operative for Karl Rove. This appointment was not made pursuant to an agreement with the two home State Senators. In our hearing last week, Paul McNulty, the second in command at the Department of Justice, testified that Mr. Cummins' dismissal was not related to how well he did his job. In fact, Mr. McNulty said he had no ``performance problems,'' but was removed merely to give an opportunity to Mr. Griffin, a person whom he admitted was not the ``best person possible'' for the job and who is reported to have been involved in an effort during the 2004 election to challenge voting by primarily African-American voters serving in the Armed Forces overseas. This was not a vacancy created by necessity or emergency. This was a vacancy created by choice to advance a political crony. Since this administration has been creating these vacancies by removing U.S. attorneys as it chooses for whatever reason--or no good reason--on a timeline it dictates, how can it now claim not to have had time to fill spots with Senate-confirmed nominees? Why were agreed upon replacements not lined up before creating these vacancies? Why were home State Senators not consulted in advance? I would note that every one of the U.S. attorneys who was asked to resign was someone chosen by this administration, while the Attorney General served as White House counsel, nominated by this President, approved by the home State Senators and confirmed by the Senate. This is a problem of the administration's imagination and choosing, like so many others. With respect to the law that has governed for the last few decades, the authority given to the Attorney General to make a time-limited interim appointment has not proven to be a problem. For example, last Congress, the time from nomination to confirmation of U.S. attorney nominations took an average of 71 days, with only three taking longer than 120 days and two of those only a few days longer. The Department opposes the district court's role in the law that existed prior to the changes enacted in a Patriot Act reauthorization conference. This was a conference in which Democratic Members were excluded. The Department claims the district court's role in filling vacancies beyond 120 days to be inconsistent with sound separation of powers principles. That is contrary to the Constitution, our history and our practices. In fact, the practice of judicial officers appointing officers of the court is well established in our history and from the earliest days. Morrison v. Olson should have laid to rest the so-called separation of powers concern now being trumpeted to justify these political maneuvers within the Justice Department. It is not just a red hearing but a bright red herring. Certainly no Republicans now defending this administration voiced concern when a panel of judges appointed Ken Starr to spend millions in taxpayer dollars going after President Clinton as a court-appointed prosecutor. I have heard not a word from the apologists who seek to use the Constitution as a shield for these activities about what the Constitution says. The Constitution provides congressional power to direct the appointment power. In article II, the part of the Constitution that this administration reads as if it says that all power resides with the President, the President's appointment power is limited by the power of Congress. Indeed, between its provisions calling for appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate and for the President's limited power to make recess appointments, the Constitution provides: But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments. Thus, the Constitution contemplates exactly what our statutes and practices have always provided. Congress is well within its authority when it vests in the courts a share of the appointment power for those who appear before them. Regrettably, this latest abuse of power follows this administration's politicization of U.S. attorneys offices. A recent study of Federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush Justice Department has pursued Democrats far more than Republicans. The study by Dr. Donald C. Shields, professor emeritus from the Department of Communication, University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Dr. John F. Cragan, professor emeritus from the Department of Communication, Illinois State University, found that between 2001 and 2006, 79 percent of the elected officials and candidates who have faced a Federal investigation were Democrats and only 18 percent Republicans. The administration's track record is not good and it again appears caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Before 1986, 28 U.S.C. 546, the law governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys, authorized the district court where a vacancy exists to appoint a person to serve until the President appointed a person to fill that vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate. When Congress changed the law in 1986 to allow the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney, it carefully circumscribed that authority by limiting it to 120 days, after which the district court would make any further interim appointment needed. I was pleased that Senator Feinstein worked so hard with Senator Specter to craft a worthwhile consensus measure to reinstate these vital limits on the Attorney General's authority and bring back incentives for the administration to fill vacancies with Senate-confirmable nominees. This measure has bipartisan support on the committee. We reported it out 13- 6 after debating and voting down several amendments. U.S. attorneys around the country are the chief Federal law enforcement officers in their States, and they have an enormous responsibility for implementing antiterrorism efforts, bringing important and often difficult cases, and taking the lead to fight public corruption. It is vital that those holding these vital positions be free from any inappropriate influence and subject to the check and balance of the confirmation process. The Specter, Feinstein, Leahy substitute to S. 214 is a measure that passed our committee with bipartisan support and I urge the Senate to take it up and pass it today so that we can curb the abuses we have seen. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. That 5 minutes of my time be yielded to the Senator from New York and the remainder of my time be yielded to the Senator from California.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request. I saw the distinguished Senator from Arizona on the floor a moment ago, and I told him I would notify him because I know he is going to object. I also see the distinguished Senator from Idaho, who will. But, Mr. President, what I am going to do is the following: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 24, S. 214, a bill to preserve the independence of U.S. attorneys, that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is remaining of the hour the Senator from Vermont has?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which will create new and better tools to combat fraud, waste, and abuse in government contracting. I commend our chief sponsor, Senator Byron Dorgan, for his leadership on this. Waste, fraud, and abuse in the name of defense is destructive and offensive, and it should never be tolerated. It saps critical resources needed by our troops, and it plays the taxpayers for fools, all the while hiding under the cover of national defense. Within the last few weeks, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has reported that the problems of waste, fraud, and abuse continue to plague our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and possibly lost, to fraud and waste. So far, the Inspector General has initiated more than 100 investigations into this fraud and abuse, but to date the Department of Justice has prosecuted just a few individuals for wrongdoing. The Department has yet to prosecute any of the contracting companies or their senior officials for fraud. This legislative reform package establishes new criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who, for ill-gotten gain, would exploit the chaos of war. I recently introduced the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, and I am pleased that Senator Dorgan has included this legislation in the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act. This legislation also promotes openness and fairness in contracting, and it includes safeguards to end cronyism and eliminate conflicts of interest in contracting decisions. It also strengthens the Federal protections afforded to whistleblowers who alert the public to contract fraud and misconduct. We have introduced antiwar profiteering legislation in the past, but the Republican-led Congress has repeatedly refused to pass it. While Congress has waited to act, we have learned that private contractors have stolen and defrauded, by some estimates, hundreds of millions of dollars from money that should have supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The time to stop these shameful acts is now, and Congress should act swiftly to enact this vital legislation. I will continue my efforts on this issue as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In particular, I plan to hold a hearing next month on the war profiteering bill. Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be protected from waste, and Federal contracts--which are paid for with taxpayer funds--should be open and transparent. This is an accountability bill, and taxpayers deserve this to be one of our highest priorities.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so people understand. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has spoken briefly about this and had remarks on it printed in the Record. Our Nation's competition laws are powerful tools to ensure that consumer welfare is the benchmark of fair and accountable industry practices. These competition laws are what make businesses work in America. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the United States are subject to our antitrust laws. Consumers benefit from lower prices, more choices, better services. There are only a few industries that operate outside the Federal antitrust laws. The bipartisan measure I have introduced would end the insurance industry's exemption from the requirement of those laws. I am joined in this effort, as I said before, by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Specter has a strong record of supporting effective competition in every industry through our antitrust laws. Of course, as I have also said, I am joined by the majority leader and by Senator Lott, who is the deputy Republican leader. Senator Lott probably wishes he was not in this position, but he represents many of the gulf coast residents who can speak personally and painfully to the abuses that insurers can wreak on their policyholders. The insurance industry's practices affect us all. Perhaps nowhere has the industry and its practices come under as much scrutiny as along the gulf coast in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Insurers have been too often denying claims and delaying payments to residents along the gulf coast instead of honoring their contractual commitments. The behavior of insurers in Mississippi has been so outrageous that the State's attorney general recently convened a grand jury to investigate some of the practices. It seems to me, insurance companies are very eager to collect premiums when times are good but reluctant to compensate policyholders when tragedy strikes. Senator Lott knows all too well the difficulties his constituents have had with insurers. His State was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina. I commend the Senator from Mississippi for his tireless efforts in trying to ensure resources are in place to rebuild. I know he is joined in that effort by his colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. I have worked with others to support efforts to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Most recently, I was pleased to assist Senator Landrieu in her successful efforts to convince the Attorney General to dispatch additional law enforcement to the New Orleans region. People in the gulf coast are Americans. They are our fellow citizens. They have been utterly failed by a woefully unprepared Government, and they should not also be bullied and neglected by insurance companies in their time of need. The insurance industry has operated largely beyond the reach of Federal antitrust laws for more than six decades. Assuming there ever was a justification to exempt insurers from Federal Government oversight, I find it hard to believe there is still a reason to exempt them--not in the age of instant communication, the age of the Internet, or the ability to compare not only risks but payments. In fact, we need real oversight, which can be brought about by removing them from the antitrust exemption. We deserve confidence that the industry is not engaging in the most egregious forms of anticompetitive conduct, such as price-fixing, agreements not to pay, or market allocation. Antitrust laws are the beacon of good competition policy. Insurers may object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else, but why shouldn't they be subject to the same laws as every other company in this country? If they are operating in an honest and appropriate and open way, they have nothing to fear. I have more on this, but I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Mississippi on the floor and the Senator from Pennsylvania. If they are seeking time, I would ask how much time they need.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time does the Senator from Pennsylvania want? Because this is coming out of time I had set aside for something else.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time would the distinguished Senator need?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Mississippi, and I am proud to be joining with him on this. He and I have discussed this several times over the past several months. I told him last fall I would join with him on such legislation, and I am proud to do so.

Mr. LEAHY. Again, we are using time that I--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended by 6 minutes, and that I be allowed to yield that 6 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time would the distinguished Senator need?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have yielded already to Senator Specter on my hour. So far I have been dramatically changing and changing the schedule of my office to accommodate everybody. The Senator from Alaska is one of the oldest and dearest friends I have here. If he wants 3 minutes, I will not object to him following Senator Specter for 3 minutes. But then I will insist and will not yield on my hour after that because we created too many problems already in my schedule.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak on Iraq, but first--I see the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania on the floor--I will introduce a bill on behalf of myself, Senator Specter, Senator Lott, and Senator Reid, regarding the insurance industry. (The remarks of Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lott and Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 618 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today there was a lot of discussion here about whether and how we should have a debate on the Iraq war. I cannot think of any issue more important to the Senate. I have said many times that the 100 men and women who serve here are privileged to do so. Someday, someone from our State will replace us. That is the genius of the Founders of this country. However, there are only 100 Members. There are 300 million Americans. The 300 million Americans expect the 100 Senators to speak for them. They do not have that opportunity themselves. I consider it a great privilege to be here. I used to sit up in the gallery when I was a law student and watch the Senate, and I thought then as I do today that the Senate should be and often is the conscience of the Nation. I heard the debates during the time of the Vietnam war. I became the only Vermonter to actually vote on whether to continue that war. Today, we have a different war but many people in this country are as concerned. Those for the war in Iraq, those against the war in Iraq. I go to my State of Vermont and everywhere I go, whether I am in buying groceries and people come talk to me or I am at the gas station or if I am shoveling snow--and yesterday we had 2\1/2\ feet of snow at my home in Vermont--people stop and want to talk about the war in Iraq. My guess is it is no different in any other State. These are very patriotic, very honest, very concerned people, and they have legitimate questions. They always ask: Why isn't the Senate debating the war in Iraq? A week ago, Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, tried every which way to provide the Senate with an opportunity to debate a bipartisan resolution on Iraq. That effort failed, and it failed again earlier today. It was blocked by some in the Republican Party who insisted on a separate vote that was nothing more than a political ploy. Instead of a debate on the President's policy, they wanted the debate to be about who supports the troops. We all support the troops, but we have some very different views about the President's policy that put brave American men and women in harm's way. As so often is the case when anyone asked a question, expressed reservations or outright opposed the President's policy in Iraq, the President's defenders accuse his detractors of not being patriotic or of not supporting the troops. What blatant balderdash that is. For years I have fought for veterans' benefits, for fair treatment for the National Guard, for armor for our troops who were sent by this administration into battle unprepared--and still, 5 years later don't have the armor their vehicles need to withstand the roadside bomb blasts. I have fought to replace the depleted stocks of equipment that our troops need and depend upon so their families do not have to send to them what the Government should be providing. The absurd accusation that it is unpatriotic to disagree with a policy that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and created a terrorists' haven in a country that, before our invasion, posed no threat to the United States, has worn thin. It reminds me of my days as a prosecutor, when a defendant was caught red-handed. What would they do? They would usually attack the accuser. They could not say ``You caught me breaking and entering.'' Rather, their defense was ``I was set up.'' Or ``He made me do it.'' That is what has been going on since President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ignored all advice to the contrary and led us into this costly fiasco. These are the people who, when they had a chance to get Osama bin Laden--and we all want to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice for the attacks on September 11--when they had him cornered in Afghanistan, they decided instead to invade Iraq. Iraq did not pose a threat. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was as equivocal as it was distorted and manipulated. But the President was fixated on Iraq, and he has remained so ever since. Remember how the Vice President confidently said we would be welcomed as liberators? Some welcome. Remember the President, dressed up in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier so he could make a rousing speech under the sign ``Mission Accomplished.'' Thousands of Americans have been killed or injured in Iraq in the years since that phony photo op. The flawed policies of this administration have thrust our troops into the maw of a bloody civil war. Our troops are not responsible for the mistaken policies they have been asked to implement. Policymakers in Washington are responsible for that and only we can change those policies. My youngest son was a member of the Marine Corps. He was called up during the first Gulf War. He saluted and was ready to do his duty, as are all the loyal men and women in our armed services. That was a different war. Thank God it was over so quickly. Neither he nor many others called up were in harm's way. But the policymakers made this policy and only they can change it, not the troops on the ground. The polls show, unmistakably, that a majority of the American people want the Congress to debate and vote on the Iraq war. They know it is the key issue of the day. They see it is a widening civil war. They want their sons and daughters to come home pursuant to as sensible a plan as we can muster. It is that simple. We ought to be debating that. If there are Senators who feel the troops should be there longer, that more of them should be sent there, then come to the Senate and say so. But also, there are those who feel we have to do all we can to bring our men and women home. We should have the opportunity to debate and vote on it. The costs of this misadventure have not just been onerous, they have been catastrophic. More than 3,000 Americans killed, more than 20,000 wounded. My wife and I have visited some of the wounded. These are devastating wounds, crippling wounds, blinding wounds, wounds that disable people for the rest of their lives. And tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives. In material terms, we are fast approaching the $1 trillion mark. We are throwing money out the door at a rate of more than $2 billion per week to fund this war. We are told about the things we cannot afford in America because we have to fund the war in Iraq. We are cutting funds for law enforcement, for police on our streets so we can pay for police in Iraq. We can't upgrade our hospitals. And on and on. And the international reputation of America, which has brought us great influence, has now been tarnished, especially among our allies, tarnished and diminished. Where are we in Iraq? We are in the midst of a civil war among religious and ethnic factions, an insurgency that shows no signs of diminishing and out-of-control organized crime. It is hard to say we have made any real progress toward the larger objective of bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. It is time we face this grim reality. Our soldiers' lives are in the balance. America's reputation is in the balance. America's ability to set an example for the rest of the world is in the balance. I made a brief statement on Tuesday about a column in last Sunday's Washington Post by retired LTG William Odom. I know General Odom. I worked with him on some of the most significant intelligence matters in this country. He has one of the most distinguished military intelligence careers. He continues to provide powerful insights on national security. In his piece entitled ``Victory Is Not An Option,'' he outlines how this administration's entire policy in Iraq, including the so-called surge strategy, is based on a self-defeating inability to face reality. The reality, according to the general, is that we are not going to make Iraq a democracy. The longer we stay, the more likely Iraq will be anti-American at the end of our intervention. Think of that, after $1 trillion. Our invasion made civil war and increased Iranian influence inevitable. No amount of military force will prevent those outcomes. Meanwhile, our presence is only stoking al-Qaida's involvement in Iraq. The reality is that supporting our troops does not mean keeping them there to carry out a failed strategy. It means pursuing a course that protects the country's interests and prevents more Americans from dying in pursuit of an ill-defined, open-ended strategy that cannot succeed. General Odom knows we need to begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. He argues we should join with other countries in the region, those whose input this administration has often ignored, and seek to stabilize the region through sustained, high-level diplomacy. These views are in line with those of some of our senior military officers, national security experts and many in Congress, and I might say a majority of the American people. The people we are here to represent. Look at what the administration and defenders of the Republican Party offer instead: We get filibusters when it is time to debate the President's Iraq policy, we get the same old rhetoric about not supporting the troops, and we get a bill from the President for another $100 billion to send 20,000 more troops and continue the war. If the President cannot face the reality that even some Members of his own party increasingly have come to accept, then it is our responsibility-- I would also say our patriotic duty and our moral duty--to act. A nonbinding resolution that sends a clear message in opposition to an escalation of troops is far better than the years of silence of a rubberstamp Congress. But we know the President will ignore it. He has already said so. We know it is only a first step. I will support binding legislation by Senators Obama and Feingold to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. It is not our role to choose sides in this civil war, and it is a prescription for disaster. It is not our troops' role to die trying to force these warring factions to settle their age-old differences. We need to continue to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We need to deploy sufficient forces and intelligence assets to track down international terrorists around the world. We need to do a lot better job of policing our borders, without denying entry to innocent people who are fleeing persecution. General Odom is right, keeping our troops in Iraq is not making us safer. We should be bringing our troops home. We should be bringing them home with the thanks of a nation for doing their duty. Congress has the power to force the President to change course. That is what the American people want. That is what we should be debating.