Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the SCHIP amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Baucus and Rockefeller, and to respectfully oppose the amendment of my colleague Senator Cornyn. I also want to praise my senior Senator, Jack Reed, and thank him for his tireless commitment to providing vital health care coverage to the children of Rhode Island for so many years. Our State of Rhode Island has one of the lowest rates of uninsured adults and children in the Nation. This fact is both encouraging and troubling. It is encouraging because insured children are more likely to receive medical care for common conditions like asthma and ear infections. It is encouraging because insured children have higher school attendance rates and higher academic achievement. It is encouraging because insured individuals are more likely to receive preventive care like mammograms and other cancer screenings. But Rhode Island's uninsured rates trouble me because, even as one of the most well-insured States in the Nation, my State is still home to nearly 120,000 uninsured Americans. And 20,000 of those are children. Even as a leader in insuring children and adults in this Nation, we are still far from where we need to be, and we are going in the wrong direction. Rhode Island witnessed a 4.2-percent increase in the number of uninsured from 2000 to 2004, coupled with a 7.3-percent drop in those covered by employer-sponsored plans. Senator Cornyn's amendment proposes to limit the SCHIP program to children under 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. In Rhode Island, that would have meant that almost 2,700 children would not have been able to access health insurance using SCHIP funds during fiscal year 2006. And this number does not even include children under the age of 8 because Rhode Island has covered those children through its Medicaid Program up to 250 percent of poverty. For my colleagues from larger States, 2,700 might not sound like that many children. But the Cornyn amendment would potentially result in a 7.5-percent increase in the uninsured rate for children in our State. This is unacceptable. And it is particularly unacceptable in light of the fact that 10.1 percent of Rhode Island children under 250 percent of poverty are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. I also oppose the Cornyn amendment because I do not believe that we should use SCHIP reauthorization as a vehicle to limit coverage of parents. First, covering parents is one of the most effective ways to cover children. When States cover parents, children participate in the Medicaid Program at higher rates, they have more contact with medical professionals, and receive more preventive care. Second, kicking parents off SCHIP only increases the number of uninsured individuals in our States, and forces those individuals to seek coverage in more expensive settings like hospital emergency rooms. Lastly, the Bush administration has repeatedly approved waivers to expand insurance to parents of children covered under State Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Covering parents is a value shared on both sides of the aisle. As we move forward with this budget, and move forward with the ongoing health care debate, we should not be looking for ways to limit the coverage that States can offer their residents, but ways to expand coverage to new and wider populations. For savings, we should be looking at reforms that improve quality and reduce cost, not throwing kids off health care programs. SCHIP was created in an effort to provide health insurance coverage to vulnerable children. In the spirit of this program, reauthorization should provide us with an opportunity to expand the tools States can use to cover the uninsured, not as an opportunity to hurt those Americans who need help the most. I want to make a particular point to thank Chairman Conrad and his staff for their superb work throughout this budget process, and for the chairman's continued support of children's health insurance programs.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed. I rise to commend Chairman Leahy of our Judiciary Committee, and Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, my senior Senators on that committee, for their very deep concern about the politicization of the Department of Justice by the Bush administration. As you know, I am new to this body, but having served as Rhode Island's U.S. attorney for 4 years, I want to share some thoughts based on that experience. First, I want to point out that even if everything the administration has said about their firing of these U.S. attorneys were true--and we certainly have cause to doubt that--there is still a very real concern here that merits the attention of this body over the independence of the U.S. attorneys. My experience convinces me--and it convinces me firmly--that Main Justice and the U.S. attorneys in the field check and balance each other in a way that is very healthy for the administration of justice in this country. Even if the mass firings--the purge of U.S. attorneys--had been done to punish policy differences with the Department of Justice, the firings would still defeat that healthy check and balance. Bear in mind that nothing has been shown that suggests the exercise of graduated discipline one would expect in any kind of a well-managed setting. For instance, Carol Lam was ostensibly fired for not prosecuting enough low-level immigration cases. But when she was here testifying before us, she testified she was not told that when she was fired; nor, evidently, was she ever told beforehand this issue was a serious problem for her or that it might cost her job. Even enemy ships usually get a warning shot. So the message of these firings to the U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration is this: You serve at our whim. You displease us at your peril. A sudden firing awaits you if you cross us. That is a very bad message to send in the context of this traditional balance. Intimidation by purge is a tactic far better suited for a Soviet ministry of justice than for the U.S. Department of Justice-- that is, if everything they have said is true, which brings us now to the question of the Department of Justice telling the truth. Let me start by saying, as I have said to the Attorney General directly, unless you are first a department of truth, you will never be a Department of Justice. Without truth, there can be no justice. We know already--because they have admitted it--the Department of Justice came before the Senate days ago and told us things that were not true. We also know they have said things that are inconsistent. They have not yet told us which statement is true and which statement is not true, but they have said things that cannot both be true. At least one must inevitably be false. We also know they have said things that boggle the imagination. Perhaps they are true, but it seems mighty unlikely. The big question within this shameful cloud of admitted falsehood, inevitable falsehood, and probable falsehood is this: What truth hides behind the bodyguard of lies? Is it this: U.S. attorneys who prosecuted public corruption cases against Republicans or those who did not bring public corruption cases against Democrats were terminated with extreme political prejudice? Is that what made them fail the Department of Justice test that they be ``loyal Bushies''? Is that what made Carol Lam a ``real problem'' for the Department of Justice on the day Republican corruption indictments were announced? Like dead flesh that must be excised before a wound can heal, like rotten wood that must be scraped away before rebuilding can begin, the cloud of falsehood that now wraps around the Department of Justice must be dispelled. It must first, again, become a department of truth or else it can never again be our American Department of Justice. We cannot tolerate a Department of Justice or an Attorney General who will not give the complete truth and face the consequences. I think at least three questions must be pursued by the Judiciary Committee or, if and when necessary, the entire Senate. One, let's review authoritatively the historic relationship between U.S. attorneys and the Department of Justice, if necessary with expert assistance from historians and input from U.S. attorneys who served in past administrations. The President of the United States has said this selective mass firing of U.S. attorneys is--this is his quote--``customary practice.'' As a former U.S. attorney myself, I believe that statement by the President of the United States to be false. His own Department of Justice officials seem to have conceded in their e-mail traffic that it is false. But let's take a thorough look because--I should not have to state the obvious--our President should not be saying things that are not true and also because that historic balance between independent U.S. attorneys serving in the field, in their districts, before their judges, and knowing their communities, against the group here in Washington that runs Main Justice, that historic balance has value which should not be destroyed. Two, let's get the full, exact, unvarnished truth of what happened, and let's fix accountability for things that were said that were false. Falsehood has no place within the halls of the Department of Justice. Whatever needs to be done to dispel the clouds of falsehood, we must do. Three, if, indeed, the worst is to be feared and this Department has infected its pursuit of political corruption with partisan bias, let's find that out. Let's start by looking at the cold, hard, numerical statistics on public corruption matters under this administration, again with expert help, if necessary, and certainly with full regard for the confidentiality of such investigations, and let's see what the factual record is and what it suggests. We can then proceed as necessary. God forbid this should be so, but the air is thick with reasonable suspicion which must be laid to rest, and if the worst should prove true, God forbid the Senate fail in its duty to preserve, protect, and defend the integrity of our Government where its integrity should least be questioned--in the U.S. Department of Justice. I look forward to working with my learned colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to do whatever is necessary to restore the honor and credibility of a once-proud department and the tradition of its able and independent U.S. attorney corps. In the meantime, I hope we will all support Senator Feinstein's commendable legislation, S. 214, to close the PATRIOT Act loophole that may have invigorated the Bush administration in its unprecedented assault on the U.S. attorney corps. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, the Senate will vote on whether America is on the right course in Iraq, or the wrong one. I have spent the past two years traveling all over Rhode Island, listening to people from my state who were angry and frustrated at this President's refusal to see that his policies in Iraq were wrong from the start, and remain wrong today. Last November, they and millions of Americans cast their votes for a new direction. They sent us here to hold this President accountable: for distorting intelligence to serve his policy goals; for failing to give our troops the equipment they needed to do their jobs overseas, and failing to take adequate care of them when they return home; for telling our country the mission was accomplished when, as we've seen, the war has now stretched on for five long years; for now proposing to send tens of thousands more American soldiers into harm's way, against the wishes of the American people, and without a plan to bring the conflict to an end. Americans know the truth: escalating the war in Iraq will not make that nation more secure, or bring Iraq and its people any closer to a lasting peace. It will not make our nation more secure. And it is not the new direction Americans demanded. There is a way to change course in Iraq. If we announce clearly that the redeployment of American troops will begin, and begin soon, that opens up diplomatic opportunities in Iraq, in the Middle East, and around the world. When it is evident to the insurgents that America is not an army of occupation, the factions within the Iraqi government will be obliged-- and better able--to assume responsibility for the security and governance of their own nation. Iraq's neighbors will be newly motivated to take steps that will encourage a peaceful and secure Gulf region. This binding resolution makes it clear that the situation in Iraq has changed since Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq in 2002. It states the President must begin the phased redeployment of American combat troops in no later than four months, with that redeployment completed by March 31, 2008. The President failed to show America a new direction, and so the Senate will step forward to lead where he will not. I will vote yes to a change of course in Iraq, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 102, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time, passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record, and that any statements thereon be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of the following two bills which have been received from the House and are at the desk: H.R. 544 and H.R. 584; that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 342, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, and the Republican leader has no further business, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. On behalf of the leader, I remind Members that on Monday, March 12, there will be no rollcall votes, as has been previously announced.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2:30 p.m. Monday, March 12; that on Monday following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 103, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first let me extend my condolences to the Republican leader and to the people of Kentucky for the loss of their courageous native son. Mr. President, I rise this morning because in recent days we have learned, to our great dismay, that this administration has let one of our most sacred promises go unfulfilled. In Rhode Island last week I visited veterans convalescing at our VA hospital in Providence. On Tuesday, members of Rhode Island's branch of the Disabled American Veterans came to talk with me in Washington. They came to appeal for those returning from the war in Iraq. Of course, there are many brave veterans whom I have met with throughout my State over the past several years at American Legion posts, senior centers, Fourth of July and Memorial Day parades, and at our many community dinners in towns all over Rhode Island. They were men and women, young and old. They served in our Nation's wars from World War II to Vietnam to the conflict in Iraq. Like the DAV members I met yesterday, they wanted us to hear what they had to tell us: the infuriating truth that we are failing to support our troops as they return from Iraq and Afghanistan. When we ask ordinary men and women to do the extraordinary and stand up and serve in harm's way, we know that we can never fully repay what they and their families have given us. The service of Lance Corporal Otey, which we just heard about from the Republican leader, certainly emphasizes that point. But we can surely pledge to these men and women that we will give them what they need in the field, and when their service is ended we will care for them adequately. Breaking that promise is a dishonor to them and to their sacrifice, and it is not supporting our troops. I believe--as do many of my colleagues--that the best way to support our troops would be to deploy them back out of Iraq and define a more sensible and responsible strategy against terror. Some on the other side of the aisle have claimed our calls for a new strategy in Iraq mean we do not support our troops. This argument is truly horrible, thoroughly false, and I hope people watching can understand how it shows the depths to which this debate has plummeted. To add on that for a moment, I say that not because on this side of the aisle we are too thin-skinned to take a shot in the give-and-take of politics. That is the nature of what we signed up for. That is not what this is about. What this is about is that the battle of slogans we are seeing over this important issue for our country right now displaces the exchange of ideas and a thoughtful and realistic discussion of what our new strategy options are, and in that sense it greatly disserves the American people. Let's judge the support for our troops within this Chamber and within the administration by real actions, not inflammatory and phony rhetoric. By that measure, it is fair to question whether the Bush administration and those in this Chamber who support the President's Iraq policy truly understand the need of America's veterans--men and women fighting in Iraq--and those who will soon join them there as this President escalates this conflict. We want our troops now in Iraq to come home safely. They want to send tens of thousands more there. They have sent them without adequate support personnel, equipment, or armor. Indeed, during the course of my campaign to come to this place, I heard from mothers who had to go into their pocketbooks to pay for body armor for sons and daughters headed for Iraq because they could not count on this administration to provide them that basic need. Also, we have sent them without adequate assurance that should they be injured in the line of duty, they would be properly cared for when they return. That is not supporting the troops. In America, we have the best doctors, nurses, facilities, and medical equipment. From combat medics to VA hospitals, the military can and does provide our Active- Duty military personnel and veterans with medical care that is second to none. But despite all this, our military and veterans health care system has a crushing, all-encompassing problem; that is, access to that care. When service men and women enter the VA system, too often they begin a long, uphill battle for access to the care and benefits they need to get well and rebuild their lives. The war in Iraq has triggered a flood of new veterans that risks overwhelming the VA system. Mr. President, 700,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to enter the military and VA health care systems in coming years at a projected cost of as much as $600 billion. According to the Army Times, the number of service members being approved for permanent disability retirement has ``plunged''--to use their word, ``plunged''--by more than two-thirds since 2001. The Army's physical disability caseload has increased by 80 percent since 2001. As it attempts to process new benefits claims in fiscal year 2006, the VA is experiencing a 400,000-case backlog. Veterans frequently wait 6 months to 2 years before they begin to receive monthly benefits. These problems are especially acute in the area of mental health. More than 73,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan treated by the VA since 2002 have been diagnosed with a potential mental disorder. More than 39,000 have been tentatively diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and 35 percent of Iraq veterans have sought psychological counseling within a year of returning home. But where the VA spent over $3,500 per veteran on mental health care back in 1995, it spends just over $2,500 today--a drop of close to $1,000 per veteran. These are troubling statistics, but they fail utterly to capture our dismay at the reports published over the past several days in the Washington Post and Newsweek magazine of the unacceptable living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Medical Center and the stifling bureaucracy that blockades many veterans' access to care. The Washington Post wrote of soldiers living in Walter Reed facilities infested with mold and mice, unable to get new uniforms to replace those cut from their bodies by military doctors in the field, forced to bring photos and even their own Purple Hearts to prove to file clerks that they, indeed, served in Iraq. Waiting months, as the VA processes benefit claims in what Marine Sgt Ryan Groves called ``a nonstop process of stalling,'' these soldiers and their families move from appointment to appointment and submit form after form, often to replace earlier forms already lost by the system. Many suffer, as we saw on television the other night on ABC, from brain injuries, from post-traumatic stress disorder, or from other mental health conditions, but Walter Reed's outpatient facilities lack sufficient mental health counselors and social workers to help them navigate the system. The Post tells us many Walter Reed outpatients now face ``teams of Army doctors scrutinizing their injuries for signs of preexisting conditions, lessening their chance for disability benefits.'' Veterans often must navigate this convoluted system alone, carrying stacks of medical records from appointment to appointment. The Post quoted Vera Heron, who lived on the post for over a year helping care for her son. Here is what she said: You are talking about guys and girls whose lives are disrupted for the rest of their lives, and they don't put any priority on it. The care of our veterans returning home from Iraq should be among our Nation's highest priorities. For these soldiers and their families to feel as forgotten and abandoned as they do means simply that this administration is not serving them as it should. It is not serving them as they served us. It is not supporting our troops. The Air Force Times just reported that soldiers at Walter Reed have now been told not to speak to the media and that the Pentagon has--and this is a quote--``clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities . . . saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: `It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,' referring to an investigation of problems at Walter Reed.'' This administration cannot and must not just bury its failure to support our troops behind a muzzled spokesperson cadre. I commend our Armed Services Committee, including my senior Senator, Rhode Island's Jack Reed, for that committee's announced hearing on conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. I hope they will be relentless in their investigation. My colleagues and the constituents we represent wholeheartedly support our troops and our veterans. Anything else one hears is a lie. We believe it is time for our soldiers to redeploy out of Iraq because we believe that is our Nation's best strategy forward in the Middle East and to combat terror. But we also believe that as they serve and when they get home, we must make good on our promises--our promise to train and equip them in their service and our promise to care for them in their injury and illness. It is our obligation to do this. In the face of all we have heard and seen, that obligation, like so many others, has been failed by this administration. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, the sentence in that letter which strikes me as the most significant is: We are concerned that the role of the United States Attorneys may have been undermined by what may have been political considerations which run counter to the proper administration of justice and the traditions of the Department of Justice. This is not a good day. This is not the sort of thing that we need to be discussing. This is not the sort of thing that we should be discussing. As Senator Schumer earlier said, there is a lot of smoke in the air right now, and it looks as if there is actually some fire. It is truly incumbent on this body, the body which confirmed these individuals to their offices and which has oversight responsibility with the Department of Justice, to look into what is happening and to reestablish the procedures to prevent this from happening again. I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 The National Association of Former United States Attorneys, February 14, 2007. Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Re: Media Reports of Termination of United States Attorneys Dear Attorney General Gonzales, We are the President and Executive Director of the National Association of Former United States Attorneys (``NAFUSA''). NAFUSA was founded in March 1979 to promote, defend and further the integrity and the preservation of the litigating authority and independence of the Office of the United States Attorney. Our membership includes United States Attorneys from every administration back to President Kennedy and includes former United States Attorneys from every state in the union. It is with this mission and with our cumulative experience as United States Attorneys that we write. We are very troubled with recent press accounts concerning the termination of a sizable number of United States Attorneys. Historically, United States Attorneys have had a certain degree of independence because of the unique and integral role the United States Attorneys play in federal law enforcement Among other things, the United States Attorney establishes and maintains working and trusting relationships with key federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. In many respects, while the United States Attorney is a representative of the Department of Justice in each district, the United States Attorney also brings to bear his or her experience and knowledge of the law enforcement needs of the district in establishing priorities and allocating resources. Most importantly, United States Attorneys have maintained a strong. tradition of insuring that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, without favor to anyone and without regard to any political consideration. It is for these reasons that the usual practice has been for United States Attorneys to be permitted to serve for the duration of the administration that appointed them. We are concerned that the role of the United States Attorneys may have been undermined by what may have been political considerations which run counter to the proper administration of justice and the tradition of the Department of Justice. While we certainly recognize that the United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, we would vigorously oppose any effort by any Attorney General to remove a United States Attorney as a result of political displeasure or for political reward. Any such effort would undermine the confidence of the federal judiciary, federal and local law enforcement agencies, the public, and the thousands of Assistant United States Attorneys working in those offices. We do not mean to suggest that we know the reasons for each of the terminations or, for that matter, all of the relevant facts. Indeed, we encourage the Department of Justice and Congress to make as full and as complete a disclosure of the facts surrounding these firings as is permissible. Still, the reported facts are troubling, perhaps unique in the annals of the Department of Justice, and certainly raise questions as to whether political considerations prompted the decision to terminate so many United States Attorneys. It may well be that legislative attention or a written policy of the Department of Justice is necessary to deal with this and similar situations in the future to afford continuity and protection to United States Attorneys. We will be happy to assist the Department or Congress in any such effort. Sincerely yours, Atlee W. Wampler III, President. B. Mahlon Brown, Executive Director. Amendment No. 279, as Modified

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the remarks the Senator from California and the Senator from New York have made today are very well taken, and I rise to express my shared concern with them and my support for their initiative to get to the bottom of what took place. In May of 1994 I had the honor to be sworn in as Rhode Island's U.S. attorney. It was one of the great honors of my life, equivalent to the great honor of being sworn in with you, Mr. President, into this extraordinary body. I knew when I took that oath that I would be forced to make very hard decisions and that my independence and my integrity would be my strongest allies as I discharged the extraordinarily difficult and powerful responsibilities of a U.S. attorney. Last December, seven U.S. attorneys were fired by the Department of Justice, all on the very same day. That is unprecedented. Never, to my knowledge, in the history of the Department have so many heads of U.S. attorneys rolled all on the same day. These men and women had been confirmed in this great Chamber. By all indications, they were well qualified and performing well in their jobs. Several of them were involved in ongoing public corruption investigations. Yet in this unprecedented step, this administration showed them all the door. It suggests to us all the question: why might such an extraordinary act have taken place; why were they told their services were no longer required? The Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, told us this: What we do is make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified that ``turnover in the position of U.S. attorney is not uncommon.'' So the two suggestions that were made were that this was performance related, that a performance evaluation had been done of these individuals and they had not measured up, and that it was just turnover. It is hard to accommodate both of those stories, but when one looks into each of them, it makes even less sense. The committee, through Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein, asked to see the Evaluation and Review Staff reports, what is called an EARS evaluation. When I was a U.S. attorney in Rhode Island, I lived through an EARS evaluation. All the local agencies were interviewed by career U.S. attorney services staff, detailed to Rhode Island just for the purpose of doing these evaluations. They happen in every office every 3 years. They are a significant part of the oversight and management practice of the Department of Justice, and they are extremely thorough. We asked to see the reports. When it was clear that we were going to ask to see these performance evaluations, the Department began to back down. Mr. McNulty told the committee: We are ready to stipulate that the removal of the U.S. attorneys may or may not be something supported by an EARS report because it may be something performance related that isn't the subject of what the evaluators saw or when they saw it or how it came up, and so forth. There isn't much that an EARS evaluation doesn't look at, and contrary views began to emerge from the Department very shortly. In an article published February 4, the Washington Post reported that: [O]ne administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of ``pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in those places.'' Let's look at some of those places. In Arkansas, H.E. Bud Cummins III was a 5-year veteran U.S. attorney serving in Arkansas's Eastern District. Last June, he was asked to resign. The man chosen to replace the well-respected Mr. Cummins was Tim Griffin. Mr. Griffin is 37 years old. He served as Special Assistant to Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, where he was sent as a detailee to the Arkansas U.S. Attorney's Office. What Mr. Griffin lacked in prosecutorial experience, he more than made up for in political experience. Mr. Griffin is a former aide to Presidential adviser Karl Rove. He is also a former Republican National Committee research director. As those of us who have been through this sort of thing know, ``research director'' is not about looking up old statutes; it is about prying into personal lives of other candidates in order to try to dig up dirt on them. A more partisan choice could not have been made to replace Mr. Cummins. Remember, Mr. McNulty said: The Department is committed to having the best person possible for discharging the responsibilities of that office at all times in every district. It is just hard to believe that Mr. Tim Griffin was the best person possible, at least not as we ordinarily define those terms. At the end of our Judiciary hearing, Mr. McNulty admitted that Mr. Cummins, the Government's chief prosecutor in Little Rock, Arkansas, was fired to give Mr. Griffin the opportunity to have the appointment. In San Diego, U.S. attorney Carol Lam successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham, who pled guilty and resigned in 2005. She subpoenaed the House Armed Services, Appropriations, and Intelligence Committees in connection with a probe into Defense Department contracts. Her office indicted Kyle ``Dusty'' Foggo, the CIA's former Executive Director, and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor and top Republican fundraiser. In her district, former Reagan U.S. attorney Peter Nunez--another Republican political appointee familiar with the world of U.S. attorneys because he served there himself; he served from 1982 to 1988--said this: It's just like nothing I have ever seen before in 35-plus years. To be asked to resign and to be publicly humiliated by leaking this to the press is beyond any bounds of decency and behavior. It shocks me. It is really outrageous. San Diego's top-ranking FBI official, Dan Dzwilewski, also commented on Lam's firing. Bear in mind, this is the Director of the FBI office that is operating as lead agency in these public corruption investigations. His quote: I guarantee politics is involved . . . It will be a huge loss from my perspective. Other U.S. attorneys, such as David Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Seattle, said they had no idea why they were being asked to step down. That changed recently. Today was posted a story from which I will quote: The U.S. attorney from New Mexico who was recently fired by the Bush administration said Wednesday that he believes he was forced out because he refused to rush an indictment in an ongoing probe of local Democrats a month before November's Congressional elections. David Iglesias said two members of Congress separately called in mid October to inquire about the timing of an ongoing probe of a kickback scheme and appeared eager for an indictment to be issued on the eve of the elections in order to benefit the Republicans. He refused to name the members of Congress because he said he feared retaliation. . . . "U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden, who also stepped down Wednesday after being asked to leave in December'' had it recently reported in the Wall Street Journal that the FBI was investigating in his district allegations ``whether Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons performed any official acts on behalf of a contract in exchange for gifts or payments. Gibbons, a Republican, has denied any wrongdoing.'' Bogden said he hoped that the ongoing case did not have anything to do with his ouster. This is his quote: You would like to think that the reason you're put in the position as U.S. attorney is because you are willing to step up to the plate and take on big cases, Bogden said. It's not a good thing if you begin to wonder whether you'll lose your job if you pursue them. Last month, a Las Vegas newspaper reported: a GOP source said . . . the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to ``give somebody else that experience'' to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs. These are extremely troubling facts. The New York Times has recently editorialized on this subject and hypothesized three reasons for why these well-qualified attorneys were fired. As the New York Times said, ``all political and all disturbing.'' The first reason: helping friends; the second, candidate recruitment; the third, Presidential politics. The newspaper concluded that the politicization of Government over the last 6 years has had tragic consequences in New Orleans, in Iraq, and elsewhere, but allowing politics to infect U.S. Attorney's Offices takes it to a whole new level. Congress should continue to pursue the case of the fired U.S. attorneys vigorously, both to find out what really happened and to make sure that it does not happen again. I would like to highlight two further concerns that come from my experience as a U.S. attorney. One concern is how this alters the balance between U.S. Attorney's Offices and what we used to call main Justice, and the second concern is the chilling effect on prosecutions of public corruption. There is constant tension between the U.S. attorneys in the field and main Justice. The U.S. attorneys know their districts, they have practiced before those judges, they know their office's capabilities very well, and they have their own local priorities. Of course, the Department of Justice also has its own priorities, its national priorities set by the President, and the tension between those two is healthy and is constant. In getting its message out to the U.S. attorneys, the Department has a wide array of ways to send its signals and make its wishes known, but to take six or seven well-performing U.S. attorneys and sack them all at once ends that dialogue. It brings the blunt instrument of, not even persuasion any longer, but brute force, to bear. Now, there can very well be policy differences between the Department of Justice and local offices, but this would be a first for the Department of Justice, to say: You haven't emphasized this enough so we are going to have your head. It will squash the healthy tension between U.S. attorneys and between the Department, and at least in my experience, the greater wisdom of the Department of Justice versus that of all the U.S. attorneys in the field was not such that it justifies this level of force in emphasis and enforcement and in the demand for conformity with its policy positions. I submit there is long-term damage to the capabilities of the Department of Justice as this tension is disrupted. We live in a country of checks and balances, and tensions like these are very often the best things for the public we serve when they are allowed to be maintained in a healthy fashion. The second point I would make is the chilling effect on prosecutions of public corruption. This applies particularly with respect to Ms. Lam in California. In many respects, she had become the leading edge of the Federal Government's sword point on public corruption investigation because of the investigations that I mentioned earlier in my remarks. Her office was leading the biggest public corruption cases in the Nation, with more to come it appears. U.S. Attorney Lam was personally at the helm of these investigations, and she was well qualified for that role. Her unceremonious expulsion from office will send a shockwave through the offices of her fellow U.S. attorneys, and that shockwave will carry a very unfortunate message because these cases are not easy ones. Public corruption cases are resource intensive for the office involved. They are extraordinarily challenging. Witnesses are scarce and difficult, significant agent expertise is required, internal procedures governing the investigation itself are complex and onerous, and launching one's office at established political figures is a decision with potentially serious consequences not only for the U.S. attorney but for the career people in that office. Someone who has come through all of that and moved out onto the leading edge of public corruption investigation for this country, I believe, merits the active support of the Department of Justice not just for the good work done but as a message and a signal to U.S. attorneys around the country that when they step out into that public corruption arena, we will back them up. The signal to the contrary is a dangerous one. When a U.S. attorney gets fired, and one who was deep into a public corruption investigation and is leading it so well that their termination draws a public rebuke from the FBI chief, antennae will go up across the country. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter that the Attorney General has received from the National Association of Former United States Attorneys.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of thousands of Rhode Islanders who have talked with me about the need for a new direction in Iraq and the need to bring our troops home. I speak on behalf of the veterans' families who traveled here to Washington to speak to me about their memories of war and the need for this one to end. I speak on behalf of the brave men and women serving in Iraq who have sacrificed so much and whose families anxiously await their return. I speak on behalf of mothers I met who felt they had to buy body armor for their sons and daughters headed for Iraq because they could not trust this administration to provide what was needed. The Senate may have been muzzled in recent days, but Rhode Islanders certainly have not been. More than 2,000 of them have reached out to my office in frustration, in anger, and in concern--and in the hope that this new Democratic Senate will listen to them and hear them, as this administration will not. I want to share some of what they have written me: I was at Michael Weidemann's funeral. Mr. President, Michael was a 23-year-old Army sergeant from Newport, killed in an IED blast in Anbar Province last November. The letter continues: Please, if nothing else, take care of things, so that we do not have to go through what we went through at that funeral. Michael and my son . . . were in the JROTC together. . . . He is on his second tour of Iraq. Please, don't make yesterday a dress rehearsal for me. I want my son to come home, safely. From Johnston, Rhode Island: My son . . . is presently serving in Iraq and on his second tour of duty there. . . . The President's plan ignores the American people who voted for change in November, and who continue to demand we bring our troops home. . . . The people made their voice heard, and if the President isn't going to listen, the Democratic Congress will. The President's policies have failed! From Portsmouth, Rhode Island: President Bush has ignored the advice of experience, lied to us all, lacked any plan and seems to be expecting his successor to solve the problems. It is our only hope that you, as a member of Congress, can work toward bringing our troops home soon. From Kingston: I am appalled at the loss of life--today it was reported 20 more service people were killed. The Kurds are deserting rather than fight in Baghdad. . . . We are not just losing people, we are losing big money. We have seven grandchildren. What kind of debt are we placing on those future generations? From Warwick: We never should have begun this war, let's now have the sense to end it, not prolong it. Please do whatever you can to stop the president's initiative to increase our military presence in Iraq. . . . , to spend even more money waging a war that your constituents have indicated they no longer support. From North Kingstown: We are looking to you to do whatever is in your power to stop the U.S. escalation of troops in Iraq. I and many in our nation feel this will only make a bad situation worse, widen what is essentially a civil war and lead to further casualties and costs without contributing towards a political solution. . . . We are counting on you and your colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and be counted and forge a bipartisan solution to end this war. And finally, a woman from Cumberland forwarded me a message she sent to President Bush: My nephew . . . is in the 82nd Airborne serving our country in Iraq. He is the bravest person I have ever known, along with all the other men and women serving this country. I am proud to be an American! Please, please, on behalf of my family and the families of all U.S. troops--bring them home now! Mr. President, these voices will not be unfamiliar to anyone in this body. In every State, we have heard similar voices. You have heard them in Colorado, Mr. President. My friend, Senator Sanders, has heard them in Vermont. People all across America are speaking to all of us, and it is time for us to listen and to show that we have heard and to start to bring our soldiers home. The President has not heard these voices. He wants to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. He calls this a surge. We consider it a grave mistake. Tomorrow, our vote can stop the parliamentary maneuvers that have stalled us, and this great deliberative body can begin to debate the most pressing question of this day. Let's talk for a moment about that question. The other side wishes to debate every question, any question--any question but the escalation by this President of our troops in Iraq by over 21,000 men and women. But this question we want to debate is not a question selected by Democrats for political reasons. It is possible here to choose self-serving questions and to force a debate on those questions just to make a political point. But we have not done that. This question, whether to escalate the war in Iraq, is not an invention of the Democratic Party. It is not an invention of the Senate. It is President Bush, who proposed to send tens of thousands more troops into harm's way and to escalate this conflict, who has presented this question. This question is what was presented to us by President George W. Bush, and by him alone, and it is the pressing question of today. For weeks, we on this side of the aisle have emphasized and reemphasized our strong commitment to having a real debate--a debate to a vote--to telling the American people where we stand and to casting our votes on the precise question the President of the United States has presented to America. But we have been impeded, obstructed, maneuvered away from this critical question. The other side argues that to dispute this President's judgment is to fail to support the troops--even though that judgment has failed the troops and has failed our country and has left us with few good options. But that is a false choice, Mr. President. And this hour demands better of this institution. There are ways to accomplish the change America demands, and that reason and good conscience dictate. For instance, I believe that rather than send a single additional American soldier into the sands and marshes of Iraq, this President can announce clearly and unequivocally that our troops will be redeployed from Iraq and will soon come home. The most powerful motivating force at our country's disposal today is the prospect of our redeployment out of Iraq. Let me repeat that. The most powerful motivating force at our country's disposal today is the prospect of redeployment out of Iraq. Using this power wisely, deftly, and thoughtfully would accomplish three critical objectives that, as I have said, would make great strides toward security in Iraq and stability in the region. First, a clear statement of our intent to redeploy our troops from Iraq would eliminate the sense there that we are an Army of occupation. This in turn would quiet the nationalist sentiment of the Iraqi people, now aroused against us. Many Iraqis are now so opposed to our presence they think killing American soldiers is acceptable. Second, without America's intervening presence, the world community would have to face directly the consequences of the situation in Iraq. The prospect of our departure would compel the world to take a more active role to work together with America to bring peace and stability to the region. We cannot continue as we are now, in every meaningful way completely alone. Third, Iraq's neighbors will be obliged to assume greater responsibility for averting the risk of a Sunni-Shiite conflict igniting in Iraq and spreading beyond Iraq's borders. Without us in Iraq as a police force for a civil war, neighboring nations will have an enlivened incentive to avert a wider war. Finally, the Bush administration's preoccupation with Iraq leaves us weakened in our capability to address other obligations around the world, from the changing situation in North Korea, to the ongoing battle for Afghanistan, to the serious threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. Mr. President, these are serious matters, and they deserve the serious and sustained attention of the Senate. I hope tomorrow's vote will allow us to bring this question that attention. Mr. President, I will support that vote tomorrow. I ask other Senators, who hear our fellow Americans' genuine and sincere concern about our national interest, will do the same. I will support not only the resolution disapproving of the President's escalation plan and supporting our troops, but also other, stronger measures that will follow, and that will continue to put pressure on this administration to finally bring our troops home. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am dismayed at where we now stand. Last fall, the people of the United States sent a message to the President of the United States that the current course of his war in Iraq is deeply misguided and that bold, new solutions are called for. The President failed to listen. Yesterday, the Senate, this historic institution, was prevented from speaking. What we say in this historic Chamber about our course in Iraq, and even more what I hope we will do in this Chamber to correct that course, are among the most urgent concerns of the community of nations. It matters to millions of Americans who have already raised their voices in concern at a strategy lacking in foresight and cratered with flaws. It matters to millions more souls throughout the world whose lives, whose hopes, whose futures depend on American leadership and authority. But we are silenced as a Senate, silenced because yesterday, on the single most important issue facing America today, on the issue that has cost more than 3,000 young Americans their lives, tens of thousands more their limbs and livelihoods, and countless families their well- being--on the issue where this President has squandered so much of our national Treasury and national good will--the Senate was silent. It was silenced by a parliamentary maneuver. The people we represent deserve better from us. As you know, I am new to this body, but each time I step through these doors, I bring with me the hopes and expectations of thousands of Rhode Islanders I have heard who know it is time for a new direction in Iraq. Tired of a President who has failed to listen and failed to learn, last November, they joined millions of their countrymen and voted for change. Whenever I think of these men and women, I am filled with an enormous sense of responsibility. They trusted me to hear their voices and to make sure the Senate hears them too. So I speak today. I share Rhode Island's conviction that it is time for a change of course. Our troops and their families have made countless sacrifices, and our choices in this Chamber must be worthy of them. The situation in Iraq is dire, rife with sectarian conflict that can only be resolved by Iraqi political cooperation, not by American military force. A broad consensus has emerged from senior military commanders to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and throughout the American people that our best course would be to begin to redeploy American troops out of Iraq. Instead, the President has insisted on a costly strategy of escalation that would send more of our soldiers into harm's way. I believe that to be a terrible mistake. It is my deeply held conviction that in order to create the best environment for real change, the President must announce, clearly and unequivocally, that the United States plans to redeploy our troops from Iraq. That announcement would change the dynamic, enhancing our national security position in Iraq, in the Middle East, and throughout the world in three important ways. First, a clear statement of American intent to redeploy forces from Iraq would eliminate the Iraqi insurgents' case that we are an army of occupation. It would eliminate it once and forever. The Iraqi population's nationalist sentiment would no longer be engaged against us. The Iraqi people don't want us there, and a majority of them consequently believe it is acceptable to kill American soldiers. That is not an environment in which we can gain likely success. Second, without a buffering American presence, the world community would understand it must face the consequences of the Iraq situation. Other nations in the region and elsewhere around the world would be motivated to take a more active role to work together to bring peace and stability to the region. Now, for all intents and purposes, we are alone. In particular, Arab nations, facing the risk of a pan-Arabic, Sunni- Shiite conflict igniting in Iraq, must then assume greater responsibility for averting such an outcome. Under current U.S. policy, these Arab countries have little incentive to help calm the conflict or reduce the violence. Any incentive they have is buffered by America's role as the peacekeeper and offset by the cost, in so many eyes, of even associating with the United States. Third, Iran presently gains immensely from fomenting violence in Iraq. Keeping America bogged down in a civil war in Iraq undermines critical U.S. policy objectives, including the effort to work effectively with the international community to address the serious threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program. The threat of American redeployment changes that calculation for Iran. The advantages Iran currently enjoys from bogging America down in Iraq would diminish or evaporate. Some argue--we hear it right in this Chamber--that to fail to support this President's judgment is to fail to support the troops. Never mind the manifest and repeated flaws in that judgment: Misjudgment on weapons of mass destruction; misjudgment on when the mission was completed; misjudgment on the risks, costs, and demands of occupation; misjudgment on the wisdom of de-Baathification; misjudgment that the insurgency was in its last throes; and now misjudgment on whether there is civil war. There has never been a record of error, failure, and falsity similar to it. Now, the unfortunate fact is the President's bad misjudgments and failed diplomacy leave us few good options. Changing the Iraq dynamic can set the stage for an aggressive international diplomatic effort to restore security in Iraq and combat terrorism worldwide. An intense diplomatic effort, with the parties thus motivated by the prospect of American redeployment, is our best remaining real chance for success. It will also staunch the hemorrhage of two critical American assets: Our international standing and our national Treasury--and most importantly, it will bring our troops home. Without such a change in the dynamic, we are likely to remain trapped there, seen by many as more provocative than helpful, a great nation ensnared. For the safety of our troops, the stability of the region and the security of our Nation, that must not happen. The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. It undermines our national security by hurting our troops and their families, by diverting our attention from al-Qaida and other critical threats, and by degrading our military capability for other actions. The Iraq quagmire demands a new strategy that is both bold and realistic. If we lead boldly, sensitively, and firmly on the diplomatic front, if we speak, again, in realities instead of slogans, if we build consensus instead of polarizing nations, we can restore America's prestige, leadership, and good will. The President's escalation does not help achieve these goals, and yesterday the Senate had the opportunity to say so. We did not. We were silenced--silenced by parliamentary maneuver. The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. Let us deliberate. The debate over our course in Iraq echoes all over the world, from world capitals to the kitchen tables of middle America--everywhere except this silenced Chamber. Mr. President, I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop the stalling and allow this body to deliberate. Ultimately, the free and unfettered clash of ideas that a real Senate debate represents is exactly what our troops in Iraq are fighting for. Let us, in this historic Chamber, not undermine their sacrifice with our silence. For my part, it remains my view that announcing our intent to bring our soldiers home will help us start down the long road toward renewed American strength and leadership in the region and in the world. It is a critical journey, and it is long past time to begin. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 16 Withdrawn

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 understand that H.R. 2 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 11; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there then be a period of morning business for 90 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein, with the first half controlled by the minority and the second half controlled by the majority; that at the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume S. 1.