Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am loath to close the proceedings on this very special day when such a special milestone has been achieved by a very special man, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, whom I am privileged to count as a colleague. But toil we must. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading en bloc, and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the question we face fundamentally here is, are we a nation under the rule of law? A nation of laws or a nation of men? We have heard wonderful things said about Admiral McConnell tonight, and I share this body's admiration for Admiral McConnell. But we are not here judging him, we are here judging a piece of legislation. The piece of legislation that we are asked to judge puts exclusive rights in the Presidency to determine what gets collected against Americans overseas and what gets collected against Americans in this country who have communications from overseas that are intercepted. And it allows that determination to be made, as was just said, pursuant to a Presidential Executive order. We are a nation of separated powers. We established the FISA Court to have this authority. The court should oversee those processes. That is what this is about.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the Children's Health Insurance Program. I want to first applaud the Finance Committee for its bipartisan 17-to-4 vote to approve this bill. I thank Senators Baucus, Rockefeller, Grassley, and Hatch, Majority Leader Reid, and also the staff of the Finance Committee for all their hard work through the very difficult negotiations that made it possible to bring this critical measure so strongly to the floor. I also recognize Rhode Island's role in this piece of legislation, going all the way back to the distinguished Senator John Chafee, one of the early bipartisan sponsors of the bill. Now on the floor today, my senior Senator, Jack Reed, has been one of the most powerful and outstanding advocates for this program in this institution. I am proud to join him in supporting this bill and in this fight. I am proud also to represent a State with one of the lowest rates of uninsured adults and children in the Nation. There is a reason. Rhode Island has worked over the past 15 years to achieve this success, beginning with the RIteCare program in 1993. In 2001, the creation of this Children's Health Insurance Program allowed Rhode Island to further reduce the number of uninsured children in the State. I am proud to have been part of Gov. Bruce Sundlun's team when he started the original RIteCare program in 1993. As health care costs skyrocket, and the number of people in this country who lack health insurance approaches the staggering number of 50 million, we in Congress have an obligation to strengthen initiatives like RIteCare that make health care more accessible. For years, the Children's Health Insurance Program has given millions of uninsured American families access to health care for their kids. And pretty much everyone has thought this was a good thing. But now, setting aside reason, and driven by ideology, President Bush has threatened to lift his veto pen for only the fourth time in his Presidency to take that security and peace of mind away from these children and from their worried moms and dads, from families similar to the ones the Senator from Ohio highlighted in his eloquent remarks a moment ago. The President claims the $35 billion improvement over 5 years is too expensive. The President would prefer only the $5 billion he included in his budget. But that funding level would result in 1 million American children losing their health insurance. We certainly cannot look to President Bush for leadership. How ironic, after all we have heard from this administration praising the State Children's Health Insurance Program and even taking credit for expanding coverage, for encouraging State flexibility, and for spurring innovation at the State level. Listen to what they used to say. In the administration's plan outlining the President's second term, their fact sheet boasted: The year before President Bush took office, some 3.3 million low-income children were enrolled in SCHIP. By 2003, that number had risen to 5.8 million, a 75 percent increase. Over that same period, by working cooperatively with State Governors, the Department of Health and Human Services increased the number of low-income adults on Medicaid by 6.8 million. That was then, this is now. After that, the administration went on to lament the fact that ``millions of children who are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid coverage are not yet enrolled. Billions in Federal dollars available to the States to insure these children remain unspent because these children haven't been signed up.'' Then, at the 2004 Republican National Convention, President Bush promised this: In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the Government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need. But now the same Bush administration, the same President, is aggressively planning to deny health insurance to poor children. How does this make any sense? The President's rationale for this new parsimony was revealed before an audience in Cleveland on July 10. Here is the President's approach to health insurance for America. You just pointed this out, Mr. President: I mean, people have access to health care in America; after all, you just go to an emergency room. Well, that is a thoughtful approach. Once again, we cannot look to our President for any leadership on this issue. The administration has also expressed its opposition to the cigarette tax that will fund the increases in children's health insurance, calling it--get this--among the most regressive revenue-raising measures one could propose. That is from a letter from Secretary Leavitt to Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley. The irony department is open late in the Bush administration. In evaluating their crocodile tears about regressive tax measures, consider that this Nation will spend $233 billion in 2008 on the Bush tax cuts, 30 percent of which will go to the top 1 percent of income earners. From 2008 through 2011, the period we are talking about for children's health care, those tax cuts will cost Americans, in lost revenue and interest on the debt, nearly $1 trillion, 22 percent of which will go to people who earn more than $1 million a year. This chart illustrates just how the cost of tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans compares to the cost of expanding health care for children in this country. We are spending vastly more each year on tax cuts for the Nation's highest income earners than we are fighting for in children's health care. Here it is, $2.1 billion for children's health care in 2008, $70 billion for the richest 1 percent; $5 billion in fiscal year 2009 for children's health care, $72 billion for the richest 1 percent; and in 2010, gosh, we go all the way to $7.9 billion for children's health care with only $82 billion for the richest 1 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in just this year alone--just this year alone--we are paying an extra $46 billion in interest, not paying back the debt, just in interest, on the Bush tax cuts--$46 billion just in 1 year. And the whole thing we are arguing about here is $35 billion over 5 years for children's health care. It is truly mind-boggling. But it doesn't end there. The President has also threatened to veto the bill based on its coverage of adults. This is a policy that the administration has previously, explicitly, repeatedly approved. This is a sudden ideological U-turn of stunning and deeply hypocritical proportions. As recently as last summer at a Finance Committee hearing on children's health insurance, then CMS Administrator Mark McClellan said the following: Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives not only serves to cover additional insured individuals, but it may also increase the likelihood that they will take the steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood that their children remain enrolled in SCHIP. That was then, this is now. This administration has approved waivers to cover parents in New Mexico, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Fewer than 2 months ago, on May 30 of this year, Leslie Norwalk, who was then Acting Administrator of CMS, was ``pleased to inform'' Wisconsin that its extension request for what they call BadgerCare--it is equivalent to RIteCare in Rhode Island--had been approved through March 31, 2010. BadgerCare covers roughly 67,000 parents. Again, this waiver was approved by the Bush administration 8 weeks ago, and now he is threatening a veto for care that covers adults. Here is a copy of the letter that CMS Administrator Mark McClellan sent to my home State of Rhode Island on January 13, 2006. It reads: We are pleased to inform you that your amendment to the RIteCare section 1115 demonstration, as modified by the Special Terms and Conditions accompanying this award letter, has been approved. It also notes: Rhode Island's request to renew title XXI, section 1115, demonstration project, dated July 15, 2005, with additional information . . . has also been approved. Finally, it notes: Individuals who, at the time of initial application, are custodial parents or relative caretakers of children who are eligible under the title XIX State plan or the title XXI State plan . . . Are in the demonstration population and, of course, ``we look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff.'' Signed Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., the Administrator of CMS. This was January of 2006. This is the Bush administration. This is them signing off on adults, custodial parents, or relative caretakers of children being in the plan. Yet now the President is shocked--shocked--that this program may cover some adults. Who didn't send him the memo? At the end of May, I spoke on the Senate floor about some of the major problems facing health care in this country. I talked about the lack of investment in quality improvements, the lack of a national information technology infrastructure, and a reimbursement system that pays doctors to perform procedures rather than to help patients get well. I took these issues to the Senate floor because the structure of our system is unsound, its underlying mechanism is broken, its signals are misaligned. But there are a few shining lights in the American health care system, and the Children's Health Insurance Program is among the brightest. This program respects State flexibility, it encourages responsiveness to local needs, it fertilizes structural creativity in the health care arena, it safeguards the vulnerable, it unites families, and it invests in the future of our Nation. The Children's Health Insurance Program means that children are more likely to receive medical care for common conditions such as asthma or ear infections. It means that children have higher school attendance rates. It means that children have higher academic achievement. It means that children have more contact with medical professionals and receive more preventive care. It means that children stay out of expensive urgent care settings, such as the emergency room. We choose now in this bill and in this debate between providing our Nation's children with health insurance and not providing our Nation's children with health insurance. It is as simple as that. We choose now whether every individual in this Nation, regardless of age, gender, race, income, or health status deserves the stability and the safety that health insurance provides. We choose for millions of American families how much they have to worry, how much moms and dads have to worry about the health care of their children. It is my duty as a representative of the people of Rhode Island, and it is our collective duty as representatives of a great Nation to stick up for the most vulnerable members of our society and for programs that protect those who cannot protect themselves. We must certainly not give up in the face of an administration that willingly violates its own principles in order to create an issue on which the President can deliver a veto as a desperate political stunt in the last bleak chapters of his collapsed Presidency--not at the cost of health care for children. That would be truly pathetic. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, who have been so energetic in preserving, enhancing, and protecting this plan. Rhode Island has a significant role, going back to the days of John Chafee, whose name has been mentioned by Senator Hatch, and, of course, through Senator Jack Reed, whose relentless advocacy for this program is a legend on this floor. My time is very short, so I will speak to a very simple point and come back and speak more to the children's health issue later in the debate. It strikes me, as a new legislator, that legislating is about choices. The distinguished Senator from Utah said this bill is expensive, but it is the right thing to do. I would like to show two charts to help illustrate the expense in some context. This is a chart which illustrates the additional cost we are talking about for children's health care in America, the subject we are debating in these increments, the increase over the next 3 years. The chart compares it to the cost to all of us of the Bush tax cuts going to the 1 percent of the richest Americans. So is it expensive to spend $2.1 billion on children's health care in 2008? It probably is. And is it expensive to spend $5 billion on children's health care, increasing it in 2009? Is it expensive to spend $7.9 billion? It probably is. But this is an administration which is happy to spend $70 billion on the richest 1 percent of America in the same year that they are fighting about $2.1 billion to improve health care for children. They are willing to spend $72 billion in the following year and $82 billion after that. So in the context of comparing expense to doing the right thing, it is a little bit expensive, but is it ever the right thing, particularly in a world where we are judged by our choices. Here is another demonstration of really the same principle. We are talking about a cost spread over 5 years to help America's children have health insurance. By comparison, the interest alone on the Federal debt George Bush ran up with his tax cuts to the rich, just the interest expense in the fiscal year 2007, is more than that. It is $46 billion. This administration is fighting about whether we should spend $35.2 billion over 5 years for children's health insurance, poor children's health insurance, versus the Gulf Stream gazillionaires' tax breaks. If you look to the President for leadership, you don't find it. What you find in his budget is $5 billion across the whole period instead of 35, which, because of the increase in medical costs over that period, it has been estimated would throw a million American children off of health insurance. What Chairman Baucus has done, what Ranking Member Grassley has done, is work out a bipartisan compromise in the Senate that is the right thing to do and not all that expensive. I congratulate them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, yesterday, as you will recall, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales appeared. I spoke with him about a seemingly simple concept, the impartial administration of justice. But, as is so often the case with this administration and with this Attorney General, the simple is often confused, and what should be impartial is often tainted with politics. I asked the Attorney General about the administration's policy regarding communications between staff at the Department of Justice and at the White House, about ongoing investigations and cases. This kind of conversation, of course, should be very limited in scope. Until recently, it was. Attorney General Janet Reno wrote, in a 1994 letter to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler: Initial communications between the White House and the Justice Department regarding any pending Department investigation or criminal or civil case should involve only the White House Counsel or Deputy Counsel (or President or Vice President), and the Attorney General or Deputy or Associate Attorney General. That is seven people, total. Four in the White House, three in the Department of Justice. As I pointed out to the Attorney General, this administration has dramatically expanded this policy to allow literally hundreds of people at the White House to discuss sensitive case-specific information with dozens of people at the Department of Justice. Even worse, a further revision to this policy signed by Attorney General Gonzales specifically added the Vice Presidents's Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Counsel, David Addington, to the list of those empowered to have these conversations. Karl Rove, by the way, is also on the list. Why in the world would it be appropriate to give the Vice President's staff a green light to muck around in sensitive Department of Justice affairs? Based on my experience as a U.S. attorney, I can think of no reason. So why did the Attorney General himself issue a memo specifically authorizing that? Well, the Attorney General himself seemed to have no idea. When I asked him about it yesterday, he said: As a general matter, I would say that that's a good question. I'd have to go back and look at this. On it's face, I must say, sitting here, I am troubled by this. Well, Mr. Gonzales, I am troubled by this too. Troubled but, unfortunately, not surprised. Not surprised because this administration has, at almost every turn, done everything possible to enhance the power of the President and the Vice President to dismiss Congress's essential constitutional oversight responsibilities, to disrupt the balance of power crafted by our forefathers and to thwart those who would stand up and say: Enough is enough. But now a chorus of Senators is finally saying: Enough is enough. When I ran for the Senate, I spoke often about the need for a check on the Bush administration's relentless abuse of power. Now, after having served in this great institution for only 6\1/2\ months, I feel more strongly than ever that it is vital for our Democratic majority to serve as an essential bulwark against an imperial executive branch. Without 60 votes, we cannot get things done over objection from the other side as often as we would like. But with a majority, we can at least stop some of the mischief. We can stop them from politicizing everything from Government-funded scientific research to U.S. attorney's offices, Government functions that have historically operated entirely free of partisan influence. We can spotlight their efforts to undo our system of checks and balances, their penchant for unneeded secrecy, and often, disregard for the law and our American principles. We can call them out when they use national security as a shield against legitimate oversight and as a weapon against political adversaries, against attempts to conduct Government in secret and in darkness and sometimes in defiance of the law. In the process, the administration has done grave damage to the principles and values that have made this country an example for the world. The writ of habeas corpus? Adherence to the Geneva Conventions? The independence of Federal prosecutors? The principle of judicial review? The notion that a citizen in a democracy has a right to know what their Government is doing in his name? Each of these, in ways great and small, has been eroded by this administration. Then, when you think they cannot possibly push the envelope any further, they do. I am referring to two recent episodes: First, the Vice President's now infamous and incredible assertion that his office is exempt from an Executive order designed to protect classified information because it is not, get this, it is not an entity within the executive branch, and the Attorney General's apparent complicity with this theory. Executive Order No. 12958, as amended by President Bush, regulates the classification, safeguarding, and declassification of national security information. It also requires the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office to, among other things, conduct onsite inspection of Federal agencies and White House offices to ensure compliance with these important regulations. Despite cooperating with the National Archives in 2001 and 2002, in 2003, the Vice President abruptly decided he was above complying with an Executive order, even one signed by President Bush. Repeated attempts by the National Archives to secure the Vice President's cooperation or at least an explanation for noncompliance were met with silence and then, apparently, an effort to abolish the office that had dared try to enforce the law. In the meantime, in January 2007, the National Archives referred the question to the Department of Justice for clarification, as to whether the Vice President is an executive branch entity required to comply with an Executive order. You might think that in 6 months the Department of Justice would produce a memo stating the Vice President must comply with Executive orders and that he is, in fact, as we all know, in the executive branch. Well, you would be wrong. The Vice President makes an argument that would flunk an elementary school civics test so he may circumvent safeguards on national security information. The Attorney General goes along with this by refusing even to respond to a letter seeking clarification of the law, which is a core function of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. What is going on here? Second, in this ignominious list is the President's personal intervention to deny security clearances to investigators from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or as we call it, OPR, who were looking into the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. This is the first time ever an OPR investigator was denied necessary clearances to conduct their investigation. Of course, the denial of security clearances had the intended effect: The investigation by OPR was shut down. Now, as we all know, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has been forced to issue subpoenas to the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of Justice, and the National Security Council, in order to obtain information Congress has sought for months related to the administration's legal justification for the warrantless wiretapping program. If the White House's refusal to honor earlier congressional subpoenas and turn over information on the U.S. attorney firings is any indication of things to come, we can expect more stalling and more stonewalling by this administration as Congress seeks to learn the truth. Again, what is going on here? What is going on, I believe, is a systematic effort on the part of the Bush administration, to twist, to partisan and political advantage, threats to our national security as justification for conducting Government in secret and in darkness, shadowed from congressional oversight and far from the light of public scrutiny. If this requires making preposterous arguments, such as the Vice President's, in their view, that is fine. If this requires taking unprecedented action to deny clearance to Government investigators, fine by them. If this requires dispensing with many years of tradition and practice, distorting the plain language of Executive orders and abdicating the Department of Justice's watchdog role, again, fine with them. If this requires attempts to a evade even a congressional subpoena, well, that is apparently fine too. I will end where I began, with the issue of communications regarding ongoing cases and investigations between the White House and the Department of Justice. As Mr. Gonzales acknowledged yesterday, the greatest danger of infection of the Department of Justice with improper political influence comes from the White House. Along with Chairman Leahy, I have introduced a bill to set the Reno- Cutler policy for White House contacts as a baseline and to require the Department of Justice and the White House to report to Congress any time they authorize someone else to have these sensitive discussions. It is my sincere hope this bill will have bipartisan support. But this bill is only one small part of a larger effort to restore checks and balances to our Government. We must and we will continue this effort, challenging the administration to work for the Democratic Congress, to stop playing politics with national security, and to end the secrecy and abuse of power that have become the hallmark of the Bush era. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator from North Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I wanted to follow up, if I may for a moment, on the point raised by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who has just indicated that the effect of this amendment on my home State of Rhode Island would be $16 million less in student loans available for students. I ask the distinguished Senator from North Carolina if this is, in fact, correct? And if it is correct, where does that $16 million go that could otherwise be supporting higher education for students in my State?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If the Senator will yield for another question, does that mean that there is, in fact, with all of that said, still $16 million less available to Rhode Island students as a result of this amendment?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, many years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson said: We have entered an age in which education is not just a luxury permitting some men an advantage over others. It has become a necessity without which a person is defenseless in this complex, industrialized society. We have truly entered the century of the educated man. Those are important words to ponder as we consider the legislation now before the Senate. I thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi for their extraordinary leadership on this issue as well as so many others, and for the opportunity I have to speak today. I am here to talk about an initiative that revolutionized higher education in America, and that is the Pell grant. Inside this desk at which I stand are the names of Senators who have occupied it before me. I can actually open this drawer, take out the stuff in the drawer, and in the drawer I can see the names of Senators who have gone before me at the bottom. Here is John O. Pastore of Rhode Island, who served with great distinction and was my last Democratic predecessor in the Senate. It is hard to see because he was not a proud man and wouldn't write it in great big letters, but I can see, very carefully written, ``Pell, RI,'' Senator Pell of Rhode Island. It is a remarkable thing for me to be here in this context because Senator Claiborne Pell and his wife Nuala have long been cherished friends. Senator Pell is both a mentor to me and a constant reminder of the positive impact an individual person can have through public service. I am so glad the Senator Salazar from Colorado is presiding at this particular moment because I wish to describe to everyone a remarkable event that I was privileged to witness a few years ago. I was at an event in Rhode Island with a number of Senators, including the Senator Salazar. During that event, Senator Pell came to the tent we were all under in his wheelchair. As many of our colleagues know, he habitually uses a wheelchair now. The group became very quiet as he entered out of the respect we in Rhode Island have for this great and dedicated public servant. The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, went over to Senator Pell, took his hand and shook it and told him: I would not have been able to attend college if it had not been for the support of the Pell grant program. Now, I am standing here before you today, a United States Senator, thanks to the vision and foresight you showed years ago, your vision that every American should be able to get a college education. It was an unforgettable moment then; it gives me goosebumps to recount it now. It happened because Senator Pell understood the difference that higher education could make in the lives of America's young people--from the Ken Salazar, who now serves with such distinction in this great institution, to those who will seize the opportunities of America in the decades to come. Today, the program that bears Senator Pell's name is in our hands. Each spring, high school seniors in Rhode Island and across the country wait anxiously for acceptance letters from the colleges of their choice. I have been through this experience recently with my daughter and all of her classmates. But for many American families, almost as important as those letters from the admissions office are the letters from the financial aid office. I have heard from so many families in Rhode Island who look ahead to the day when their children will go off to college and seize their bright futures, but wonder how they will ever be able to afford it without some form of financial aid, either from the institution itself or from the Federal Government. As the cost of higher education soars higher, up 35 percent in 5 years, students and parents face ever more difficult financial choices. Many go into debt, not only through Federal student loan programs, but increasingly to private lenders. Many shoulder enormous burdens of debt that can stay with them throughout their lives. When that high school senior receives a Pell grant, money that does not have to be paid back, the dream of college becomes more of a reality. Since the Pell grant program began, these grants have been a critical form of Federal aid that has helped literally millions of young people across this country achieve a level of education that was previously out of their reach. Unfortunately, Pell grants now represent only 33 percent, one-third, of the total cost of a 4-year public university. Twenty years ago, a Pell grant would have paid 60 percent of that cost. As higher education for Americans has become more and more important, not just to their individual opportunities but also to our national economy and competitiveness--remember the words of Lyndon Johnson so many years ago: ``We have truly entered the century of the educated man''--we need education to compete. Through that time Pell grants have actually lost value versus the actual cost of college. But the support for low-income students through the Pell grants has slid away over the years, until it is now only 33 percent of the cost of a public university. So we must recommit ourselves to making college affordable to all students. The Promise grants created by the Higher Education Access Act will guarantee that students who qualify for the maximum Pell grant will receive $5,100 for the 2008-2009 academic year and $5,400 by 2011. For us in Rhode Island, this will mean $10 million in additional grant funds for Rhode Island students next year and, over the next 5 years, $86 million. It will also expand family access to Pell grants, better reflecting today's economic realities. Senator Pell is part of a strong tradition of Rhode Island Senators who have committed themselves to making higher education accessible to all Americans. This tradition is proudly carried on by Senator Pell's direct successor in this Chamber, my friend, Senator Jack Reed, a champion of higher education access and affordability. I admire his work to provide more Pell grant aid for students who need it the most-- those who work and those whose family income is under $30,000. We see in this Chamber and across the country every day--every year in September when a new group of students go off to college--the tremendous influence the work of Senator Pell has had on the fabric of our Nation and on the lives of the millions of young Americans who have used Pell grants to make their dream of higher education a reality. I applaud this important legislation. Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have worked hard together in a wonderful bipartisan spirit to put together legislation that will advance the strength of our country and the opportunity for our young people. This is a vital step and an important investment we must make in the future of America's young people. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I will be sure to do that.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Good morning. Not long ago, a woman who lives in Pawtucket, RI, wrote me: I care about the human spirit, which I think is deeply wounded by our occupation in Iraq. I have three friends serving this country because they believe it is their duty. I believe it is your duty to bring them home. I beg you for an end to this war. She is not just a lone voice from one State. All over this country, Americans call for an end to this war. At the grocery store, around the kitchen table, and in places of worship, Americans are sharing their frustration and outrage at a President who refuses to listen, refuses to admit mistakes and misjudgments, and stubbornly refuses to change course. The amendment sponsored by my distinguished senior Senator, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and the honorable chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, would require a redeployment of American troops to begin within 120 days of enactment. It sets a reasonable, responsible goal: that the redeployment be completed by April 30 of next year--2008. Let us be clear: the Levin-Reed amendment offers a new direction in Iraq. A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment is a vote to support our troops and their families who are bearing the burden of repeated deployments, long separation, and sometimes debilitating injury, and they bear it with courage, fortitude, and honor. This measure supports them by bringing the troops home safely and with honor. A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment is a vote that will help give our military the time and the resources to rebuild and recover from the strain on our troops and equipment. A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment opens strategic doors to renew diplomacy in the Middle East and throughout the world and to begin restoring America's standing, prestige, and good will in the global community. More and more of our colleagues in this body recognize the need for this new direction. Many of those who supported the war in the past have now said they can no longer support President Bush in his failed and misguided course in Iraq. But I say to my friends, when the issue before us is our single most important matter of foreign policy and national security, words alone are not enough. When our Nation's course has been as misdirected and mismanaged as it has been, words alone are not enough. When, in the face of this policy's failure and the resulting chaos in Iraq, corrective action is called for, words are not enough. And when the opportunity for that correction is within our reach, within our grasp, if only we would seize it, mere words are not enough. This is a day when we are called upon to act. The question before us is simple: Are you in favor of bringing our troops home? That is a serious question, and it demands serious, reasoned, and thoughtful debate. I was recently struck by words spoken in this Chamber by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Senator Lugar's words imparted a thoughtfulness that too long has been missing from this debate. Too often, this administration communicates not with reason but with slogans and sound bites: ``Stay the course.'' ``Support the troops.'' ``Global war on terror.'' ``Cut and run.'' ``Precipitous withdrawal.'' I say to anyone watching this debate: When you hear those words coming from this Chamber, I hope an alarm bell goes off in your head, a signal that thinking and reason have ended and sloganeering has begun. You deserve better. In May of 2003, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and said this: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. In the background, of course, was the banner that read: ``Mission Accomplished.'' Then, over a year ago, in June 2006, President Bush announced Operation Together Forward, a ``joint effort to restore security and rule of law to high-risk areas in the capital city'' of Baghdad. Then, this January, the President said he would send tens of thousands more troops there, part of a surge to try yet again to secure Iraq's capital. The months since President Bush's surge have been among the deadliest of the war. Nearly 600 U.S. soldiers have died since the announcement of the surge, and over 3,500 have been wounded. Last month, more than 100 American servicemembers died in Iraq. The month before that, more than 100 American troops lost their lives. The month before that, April of this year, over 100 American deaths. Between February 10 and May 7 of this year, the Pentagon reports U.S. forces sustained an average of 25 casualties each day--more than during that time in the previous year. Alasdair Campbell, the U.K.'s outgoing Defense Attache at its Baghdad Embassy, said in May: The evidence does not suggest that the surge is actually working, if reduction in casualties is a criterion. The Pentagon's survey found that, on average, more than 100 Iraqi civilians were killed or wounded each day between February and May-- nearly double the daily total from the same period 1 year ago. The number of unidentified murdered bodies found in Baghdad soared 70 percent during the month of May--726, compared to 411 in April. At least 21 unidentified murdered bodies were found in Baghdad just this past weekend. The displacement of Iraqi civilians has continued throughout the spring--90,000 Iraqis per month in March, April, and May of 2007, according to the Brookings monthly Iraq Index. The average weekly number of attacks across Iraq surpassed 1,000, compared to about 600 weekly attacks for the same period 1 year ago. More than 75 percent of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces. In an interview with the Washington Post in June, retired general Barry McCaffrey said: Why would we think that a temporary presence of 30,000 additional combat troops in a giant city would change the dynamics of a bitter civil war? In a survey taken in February and March of this year, 53 percent of Iraqis viewed their security environment as ``bad or very bad,'' and even in that environment, 78 percent of Iraqis, in an ABC News study, do not support having American or coalition forces in their country. Only 18 percent have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops, the BBC has reported, and 51 percent approve of attacking our forces. David Kilcullen, General Petraeus's top counterinsurgency adviser, said last month: We haven't turned the tide. We haven't turned the corner. There isn't light at the end of the tunnel. We will not turn the tide, we will not turn the corner, and there will be no light at the end of the tunnel until this administration makes it clear that our intent is to withdraw our forces rapidly and responsibly. The other side argues that to dispute this President's judgment is to fail to support the troops, even though that very judgment has catastrophically failed the troops and our country. I traveled to Iraq in March, in my capacity as a new member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get a firsthand look. I met brave Rhode Islanders in Fallujah and at a medical center where Rhode Islanders are helping provide care to our wounded soldiers. They, like all our troops in Iraq, are serving our Nation with dedication, courage, and honor. Our troops are working so hard and accomplishing so much, but this administration has not given them the support they need--not in the field of battle, not when they return home, and, most importantly, not with wisdom to match their bravery. As I traveled around Rhode Island in the last few years I met mothers who felt they had to buy body armor for their sons who were being shipped to Iraq because they could not trust this administration to provide it. Just this week, USA Today reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to address the Marines' request for Mine Resistant Ambush Protection--or MRAP--vehicles. In February, a series of articles in the Washington Post highlighted shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army hospital. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical equipment, rundown facilities, and bureaucratic snafus. This administration says we need to support the troops. I agree. We can support the troops by ensuring that they have the equipment, resources, and protection they need--and by caring for them when they return home. We can also support them with wise strategies arising from honest debate. The President says Iraq is part of a vast ``global war on terror'' and that remaining mired in a conflict there is critical to our national security. But the war in Iraq has made us less, not more, secure. The way to reverse this trend is to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. After our country has expended over $450 billion and lost more than 3,600 American lives, according to the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate released yesterday, al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorist groups remain undiminished in their intent to attack the United States and continue to adapt and improve their capabilities. While the Bush administration wallows in Iraq, al-Qaida has protected sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, again according to the unclassified key judgments of the NIE. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes a successful attack by al-Qaida would most likely be planned and come out of the group's locations in Pakistan, not Iraq. Al-Qaida, the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, remains a significant threat to our country and our national security, and 4 years of war in Iraq has not changed that fact. President Bush and his diehard allies say that what we and the American people support is cut-and-run or a precipitous withdrawal. The Levin-Reed amendment requires that we begin redeploying American troops from Iraq 4 months after the measure is enacted--not 4 days, not 4 weeks, but 4 months. Surely, with the greatest military in the world, we have the capacity to plan in 4 months to begin a redeployment of our troops. In fact, I would be surprised and concerned if our military were not already planning for such a contingency. Then, the Levin-Reed amendment sets a date for redeployment of April 30, 2008. If this amendment became law tomorrow, that would give our military and this administration more than 9 months to plan and implement our troops' redeployment--a redeployment that leaves a military presence for force protection, training, and counterterrorism in Iraq. Is that truly a precipitous withdrawal? It is not. Those who say it is are not being straightforward with the Senate and with the American people. Let me say this, because it is one of the elements of this issue which President Bush has completely and willfully overlooked: The time it will take for us to redeploy should not be idle or wasted time; it must be a time of great energy and effort, because it is our time of opportunity to begin the tough process of diplomacy that can help stabilize the Middle East and restore America's standing and prestige around the world. It is a window of time in which we must aggressively engage the region and the world community in the ongoing work to rebuild Iraq and restore stability there, in which we can confound the insurgents who foment civil war from within Iraq and the global jihadists who import violence from without it. It is a window in which Iraq's political leaders can be motivated to work for cooperation, unity, and real progress. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger described the reality that the cauldron of Iraq may overflow and engulf the region. He goes on to say that: The continuation of Iraq's current crisis presents all of Iraq's neighbors with mounting problems. . . . Saudi Arabia and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq, especially if the Baghdad regime threatens to be a satellite of Iran. The various Gulf sheikdoms, the largest of which is Kuwait, find themselves in an even more threatened position. Their interest is to help calm the Iraq turmoil and avert Iranian domination of the region. Then he says that: Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran may be brought to conclude that the risks of continued turmoil outweigh the temptations before it. But make no mistake, as long as we occupy Iraq, the broader international engagement we need will remain elusive. With the announcement of a U.S. redeployment, Iraq's neighbors must face the prospect that the Iraq cauldron may overflow, and they will, therefore, be obliged to take a more helpful--in the case of Saudi Arabia--or a more tempered--in the case of Iran--role in the area's future. They will have no other practical choice because their own national interests will now be squarely on the line. As ADM William J. Fallon has said: I see an awful lot of sitting and watching by countries in the neighborhood. It is high time that changed. Well, it is high time that changed, but our mediate and buffering military presence prevents that from changing. A redeployment will also deprive the insurgents of a strong recruiting tool--the al-Qaida narrative that the United States has imperial designs over Muslim lands, which resonates strongly in the Middle East due to their own colonial experiences with the British and the Ottomans. If we make it clear that our troops are coming home--and, critically important, that we are not leaving permanent bases behind--the insurgents and terror networks will lose this defining argument. The Bush administration and its supporters noted that the Sunni sheiks of Anbar Province have recently turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. When I met with Marine commanders in Fallujah during my trip to Iraq in March, they told me the same thing--and what an important and exciting development that was. The marine general briefing us made clear that these Sunni sheiks turned against al-Qaida in the realization that the United States would not be in Iraq forever, thanks to the political debate this Congress has insisted on since the November election. It was the prospect of our redeployment that moved them to action. Once all factions in Iraq must face the naked consequences of their actions, we should hope, and expect, to see similar moments of strategic clarity emerge. How are they doing without that pressure? Last week, we saw a report from the White House that was deeply troubling. The report said that it has become significantly harder for Iraqi leaders to make the difficult compromises necessary to foster reconciliation. In particular, the administration has focused on four objectives: provincial elections, deBaathification, constitutional reform, and the hydrocarbons law. These are the exact same issues U.S. and Iraqi military leaders stressed to us during our trip in March. Without progress in these areas, I was told by our generals, our military tactics would not succeed in accomplishing the ultimate goal. It would be putting it mildly to say I was not reassured by the signals I received from our meetings with Iraqi officials. There was a severe disconnect between the urgency of our generals about this legislation and the absence of equivalent urgency, or even energy, on the part of Iraqi officials. One American soldier I met put it in plain, homespun terms: If your parents are willing to pay for the movies so you don't have to use your own money, or if you can get your big sister to do your homework for you, who wants to give that up? Well, Mr. President, it is time. To quote the report: 1, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward enacting and implementing legislation on de- Baathi- fication reform. This is among the most divisive political issues for Iraq and compromise will be extremely difficult. 2, the current status [of efforts to enact hydrocarbon legislation] is unsatisfactory. The government of Iraq has not met its self-imposed goal of May 31 for submitting the framework hydrocarbon revenue-sharing laws. 3, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing a provincial election law. 4, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing a date for provincial elections. Legislation required for setting the date has not been enacted. 5, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward establishing provincial council authorities. So how does the administration respond to the list of unsatisfactory progress on their key elements? Let's turn again to the White House report: De-Baathification: This does not, however, necessitate a revision to the current plan and strategy. Hydrocarbon legislation: This does not, however, necessitate a revision to our current plan and strategy. Provincial elections. However, at this time, this does not necessitate a revision to our current plan and strategy. It is clear that the Iraqis have not yet made that progress. Yet this President and this administration refuse to take the one step that could truly galvanize real change in Iraq--announcing a redeployment of American forces. They must look into the abyss. We must announce that we will redeploy our troops. This is a necessary step. A redeployment of our troops creates the potential to change the overarching dynamic for the better, freeing us to focus more effectively on strategies to counter al-Qaida and stabilize the region. This is a critical step, and thoughtful, reasoned political and diplomatic leadership will be essential to take advantage of the new dynamic a redeployment offers. This is a positive step, to improve our posture and advance our strategic interests. I know my Republican colleagues wish to couch this change of course in terms of failure and abandonment. Whether this is just for rhetorical advantage, or whether they just cannot see redeployment as a calibrated part of a new and more promising regional strategy, I do not know. Let me say this, though. This is not a test of resolve. We have an enormously complex problem, a problem we have tried to solve by military force alone. Despite heroic efforts by our military, that strategy has failed--catastrophically. It did not fail because anything was lacking in our troops, it failed because the strategy was wrong-- wrong at its inception, wrong in its execution, and wrong now. We in the Senate must challenge the administration to summon the political courage and the moral courage to face the fact that the strategy was wrong and needs to change. It is never easy to admit mistakes, but when the lives of our troops and the strategic position of our country are at stake, they have to do what is right, not what is politically comfortable or fits the rhetoric. This should not be too much to ask of a President of the United States. If, as so many believe, we are on a continuing collision course with the facts, with the lessons of history; if our strategy is, in fact, ill- advised; if we indeed are creating and maintaining a poisonous dynamic in the region for ourselves, can we not at least consider that redeployment--specifically, the credible threat of redeployment--can open new doors for resolving the civil conflicts over which we are now the unwelcome police? The measure now before the Senate sets forth a thoughtful, responsible path to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It provides our military commanders with the time and resources they need to redeploy our troops safely. It will focus Iraq's political leaders on making progress, where, to put it mildly, thus far insufficient progress has been made on measures critical to their nation's future and our success. And it will galvanize the international community and the region in the practical and self-interested pursuit--or acceptance--of a more stable, more secure Iraq. The Levin-Reed amendment is the new direction Americans have called for. It is the change of course we desperately need. In a few hours, this long debate, this long night, will draw to a close. I urge my colleagues to let us vote up or down, yes or no, on the new direction the Levin-Reed amendment embodies.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if the Senator will amend his consent request so that both sides have equal additional time in morning business, there will be no objection.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. No objection. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes to speak in morning business; is that correct?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the American people have demanded a new direction in Iraq, and the momentum building toward that change is strong. It is not difficult to understand why. More than 3,600 brave American troops have lost their lives. Tens of thousands have returned home gravely injured--gravely injured. The war now costs Americans $10 billion every month in Iraq, with total spending now exceeding that of the Vietnam war. It has ruined our international standing. Despite all this, little has changed on the ground. Violence has worsened. Sectarian fighting goes on virtually unabated, with deadly attacks taking a severe and relentless toll. While courageous Americans die, Iraqi politicians argue and stall. Leaving U.S. troops caught in the morass of Iraq has not made that country more secure and, more important, it does not make our country more secure. To stay President Bush's course will continue to cost our men and women in uniform their lives and their physical and mental health. It will continue to drain our national Treasury and further erode what little good will remains for America around the world. It will leave our military with overstrained troops, overstressed families, and equipment and resources in disrepair. We are breaking our military in Iraq. It is time for a change. The American people know this. Democrats and, to their credit, many Republicans in this Congress know this. Anyone who is listening or looking with clear eyes knows this. Yet after years of misjudgments, years of misleading slogans, years of misplaced priorities, and years of failure, this President still refuses to do what he must do: Change course in Iraq and bring our courageous American troops home. Just the other day, the President reasserted his intention to stay the course, to continue this war indefinitely, an open-ended commitment, a blank check, with no prospects for redeployment or a new direction. Again, President Bush has failed to listen to the millions of Americans who have called on him and who have called on us to bring the war to an end. Enough is enough. It is time for a change. Mr. President, a Member of this body recently said this about our Nation's course in Iraq: In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long-term. I happen to agree with those words spoken by the very distinguished Senator, Richard Lugar of Indiana, but what I like the most about them is the voice of reason and thoughtfulness they impart to this debate. There has been too little of that to date. The questions we face over this war in Iraq are serious questions, and they demand seriousness and reason from those who would grapple with them. Senator Lugar's statement reflects that thoughtfulness, reflects that reason, in the midst of a debate which has all too often been characterized by a lack of those characteristics. Look at this administration, which too often communicates not with reason but with slogans and sound bites: ``Stay the course.'' ``Global war on terror.'' ``Cut and run.'' ``Precipitous withdrawal.'' People watching this continuing debate, mark when you hear the phrase ``precipitous withdrawal.'' You are hearing the end of reason, and sloganeering. This is no service to the people of our country, not when serious and difficult problems must be solved. Just look where this slogan leadership has gotten us so far. It is a dishonor roll of failure: weapons of mass destruction, nonexistent; occupation planning, incompetence; reconstruction efforts, failed; the strain on our troops and their families, disabling; the treatment of our wounded troops, disgraceful; expenditures, massive; fraud, run rampant; the confidence of the American people, forfeited after cascades of false optimism and phony good news. It is time, as Senator Lugar's words exemplify, to pursue intelligent, thoughtful, and realistic decisions about our course in Iraq, decisions that will protect our national interest. It is time to put the slogans away and thoughtfully extricate ourselves from a disastrous mess. I hope we can take these steps forward in the Senate together. I am encouraged that several Republican friends have stated clearly that they cannot support the President's failed course in Iraq and are seeking real change. As I have said many times in this Chamber, our strategy to effect change in Iraq requires the rapid and responsible redeployment of our troops. As I told the President directly when I met with him several months ago, I see the prospect of U.S. redeployment as the most powerful force at our disposal in this conflict now. That prospect of redeployment of American troops will eliminate the insurgents' argument that America is an occupying army, taking away from them a powerful recruiting tool for militant extremists. It will spur Iraq's political leaders to step forward, to quit slow-walking us through their own civil war and take responsibility for the security and governance of their own country. It will confront neighboring nations with a real impetus to assume more positive roles in assuring the region's stability. It will help restore the faith of the world in the leadership, the integrity, the good judgment, and the good will of our great country. The President's surge plan is not the new direction Americans are calling for. It is a tactic--a tactic that can only be effective as part of a larger coherent strategy. And strategy, in turn, largely depends on whether the overarching dynamic works in America's favor. In this regard, America is presently on the worst possible footing. A redeployment of our troops creates the potential to change this overarching dynamic for the better, freeing us to focus on more effective strategies to counter al-Qaida and to stabilize the region. Iraqi leaders will have to reach compromises with each other because their vision for their country's future will no longer be drawn with a major U.S. military presence in it. In the time it will take to bring our massive deployment of troops home, we can send a clear signal to Iraqi leaders and to Iraq's neighbors that America is standing down and it is time for them to stand up. We can help them do that. This is a critical step, and thoughtful, reasoned, political, and diplomatic leadership will be essential to take advantage of the new dynamic a redeployment offers. I will confess that I am deeply troubled that this administration may not have the credibility it needs to accomplish this difficult task, even if it were of a mind to try. This Congress can help set favorable conditions for executive action. We cannot legislate diligence, we cannot legislate thoughtfulness, we cannot legislate competence, and it is not clear that this administration is viewed as capable of those qualities any longer. It may take new faces and new voices to represent our country credibly in this process. Fortunately, there are many talented and accomplished people in this country whose perspectives and experience can help build America's credibility and prestige around the world. It will be a significant diplomatic challenge, but it presents a significant-- perhaps historic--diplomatic opportunity. That executive responsibility--the need to put ourselves in that diplomatic arena--does not relieve us in the Senate of our duty to continue to press forcefully on behalf of the millions of Americans who demanded a change in Iraq, to apply reason, thought, and our best care and judgment to a problem that has not yielded to sloganeering. We will keep the pressure on this President and his administration, whose inability to admit failure is leading our precious Nation deeper and deeper into disaster in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a markup of S. 1671 ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007,'' S. 1622 ``Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007,'' and other pending business on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on Smithsonian Institution governance reform and a report by the Smithsonian's Independent Review Committee.