To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We now move to the conference report to
accompany the foreign operations bill, H.R. 3057.
Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the
conference report.
Mr. WARNER. I understand the leadership requests the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the order for debate
entered into on this conference report?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes of debate equally divided.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Kentucky. I
praise him and his staff.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). All time having been yielded
back, the question is on agreeing to the conference report. The yeas
and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 320 Leg.]

YEAS--91

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--9

Alexander
Corzine
Domenici
Enzi
Hagel
Inouye
Lugar
Santorum
Thomas
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only
remaining first-degree amendments to the Defense bill, other than any
further managers' amendments that are cleared, be an amendment offered
by the majority leader or his designee on Iraq, and an amendment
offered by the Democratic leader or his designee on Iraq, and that they
be laid down this evening with no second degrees in order. I further
ask unanimous consent that there be 3 second degrees in order to the
Graham amendment, two offered by Senator Levin or his designee, and one
offered by Senator Graham. I further ask consent that all amendments be
offered and debated on Monday, under the previous limitations, and that
on Tuesday, at a time determined by the majority leader, after
consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to a vote
in relation to the majority amendment on Iraq, to be followed by a vote
in relation to the Democratic amendment, to be followed by votes in
relation to the second degree amendments in order offered, to be
followed by a vote on the underlying Graham amendment, as amended; and
that following these votes the bill be read a third time and the Senate
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or
debate; finally, that there be 30 minutes equally divided between the
two managers prior to the start of the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I surely will not, is
it my understanding that we had agreed that there would be some brief
time period on Tuesday, prior to the votes on the Iraq amendments, I
believe it was like 20 minutes?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just for the information of our colleagues,
there will be 30 minutes equally divided between the two managers prior
to the start of the votes.
Mr. LEVIN. With that clarification, I am very content.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished majority leader and the
Democratic leader and all others who made possible that we will now
have a Defense authorization bill, a strong bill, a good bill. The UC
just propounded by the distinguished majority leader requires that the
Iraq amendments be laid down tonight.

Amendment No. 2518

On behalf of the distinguished majority leader and myself, I now send
to the desk the Iraq amendment as required by the UC. My understanding
is the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Michigan on Iraq is
at the desk; is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. I was going to send that up immediately after the Senator
sends up his amendment.

[[Page S12669]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, and
Mr. Frist proposes an amendment numbered 2518.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United
States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to
Iraq)

At the end of title XII, add the following:

SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``United
States Policy on Iraq Act''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that,
in order to succeed in Iraq--
(1) members of the United States Armed Forces who are
serving or have served in Iraq and their families deserve the
utmost respect and the heartfelt gratitude of the American
people for their unwavering devotion to duty, service to the
Nation, and selfless sacrifice under the most difficult
circumstances;
(2) it is important to recognize that the Iraqi people have
made enormous sacrifices and that the overwhelming majority
of Iraqis want to live in peace and security;
(3) calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security
forces taking the lead for the security of a free and
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;
(4) United States military forces should not stay in Iraq
any longer than required and the people of Iraq should be so
advised;
(5) the Administration should tell the leaders of all
groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make
the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and
sustainable political settlement that is essential for
defeating the insurgency in Iraq, within the schedule they
set for themselves; and
(6) the Administration needs to explain to Congress and the
American people its strategy for the successful completion of
the mission in Iraq.
(c) Reports to Congress on United States Policy and
Military Operations in Iraq.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every three months
thereafter until all United States combat brigades have
redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress
an unclassified report on United States policy and military
operations in Iraq. Each report shall include to the extent
practicable the following unclassified information:
(1) The current military mission and the diplomatic,
political, economic, and military measures, if any, that are
being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or
support that mission, including:
(A) Efforts to convince Iraq's main communities to make the
compromises necessary for a broad-based and sustainable
political settlement.
(B) Engaging the international community and the region in
the effort to stabilize Iraq and to forge a broad-based and
sustainable political settlement.
(C) Strengthening the capacity of Iraq's government
ministries.
(D) Accelerating the delivery of basic services.
(E) Securing the delivery of pledged economic assistance
from the international community and additional pledges of
assistance.
(F) Training Iraqi security forces and transferring
security responsibilities to those forces and the government
of Iraq.
(2) Whether the Iraqis have made the compromises necessary
to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political
settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in
Iraq.
(3) Any specific conditions included in the April 2005
Multi-National Forces-Iraq campaign action plan (referred to
in United States Government Accountability Office October
2005 report on Rebuilding Iraq: DOD Reports Should Link
Economic, Governance, and Security Indicators to Conditions
for Stabilizing Iraq), and any subsequent updates to that
campaign plan, that must be met in order to provide for the
transition of security responsibility to Iraqi security
forces.
(4) To the extent that these conditions are not covered
under paragraph (3), the following should also be addressed:
(A) The number of battalions of the Iraqi Armed Forces that
must be able to operate independently or to take the lead in
counterinsurgency operations and the defense of Iraq's
territory.
(B) The number of Iraqi special police units that must be
able to operate independently or to take the lead in
maintaining law and order and fighting the insurgency.
(C) The number of regular police that must be trained and
equipped to maintain law and order.
(D) The ability of Iraq's Federal ministries and provincial
and local governments to independently sustain, direct, and
coordinate Iraq's security forces.
(5) The criteria to be used to evaluate progress toward
meeting such conditions.
(6) A schedule for meeting such conditions, an assessment
of the extent to which such conditions have been met,
information regarding variables that could alter that
schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that
schedule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 2519

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Senator Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Obama and
Mrs. Boxer proposes an amendment numbered 2519.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United
States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to
Iraq)

At the end of title XII, add the following:

SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``United
States Policy on Iraq Act''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that,
in order to succeed in Iraq--
(1) members of the United States Armed Forces who are
serving or have served in Iraq and their families deserve the
utmost respect and the heartfelt gratitude of the American
people for their unwavering devotion to duty, service to the
Nation, and selfless sacrifice under the most difficult
circumstances;
(2) it is important to recognize that the Iraqi people have
made enormous sacrifices and that the overwhelming majority
of Iraqis want to live in peace and security;
(3) calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security
forces taking the lead for the security of a free and
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;
(4) United States military forces should not stay in Iraq
indefinitely and the people of Iraq should be so advised;
(5) the Administration should tell the leaders of all
groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make
the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and
sustainable political settlement that is essential for
defeating the insurgency in Iraq, within the schedule they
set for themselves; and
(6) the Administration needs to explain to Congress and the
American people its strategy for the successful completion of
the mission in Iraq.
(c) Reports to Congress on United States Policy and
Military Operations in Iraq.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every three months
thereafter until all United States combat brigades have
redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress
an unclassified report on United States policy and military
operations in Iraq. Each report shall include the following:
(1) The current military mission and the diplomatic,
political, economic, and military measures, if any, that are
being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or
support that mission, including:
(A) Efforts to convince Iraq's main communities to make the
compromises necessary for a broad-based and sustainable
political settlement.
(B) Engaging the international community and the region in
the effort to stabilize Iraq and to forge a broad-based and
sustainable political settlement.
(C) Strengthening the capacity of Iraq's government
ministries.
(D) Accelerating the delivery of basic services.
(E) Securing the delivery of pledged economic assistance
from the international community and additional pledges of
assistance.
(F) Training Iraqi security forces and transferring
security responsibilities to those forces and the government
of Iraq.
(2) Whether the Iraqis have made the compromises necessary
to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political
settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in
Iraq.
(3) Any specific conditions included in the April 2005
Multi-National Forces-Iraq campaign action plan (referred to
in United States Government Accountability Office October
2005 report on Rebuilding Iraq: DOD Reports Should Link
Economic, Governance, and Security Indicators to Conditions
for Stabilizing Iraq), and any subsequent updates to that
campaign plan, that must be met in order to provide for the
transition of security responsibility to Iraqi security
forces.
(4) To the extent that these conditions are not covered
under paragraph (3), the following should also be addressed:
(A) The number of battalions of the Iraqi Armed Forces that
must be able to operate independently or to take the lead in
counterinsurgency operations and the defense of Iraq's
territory.
(B) The number of Iraqi special police units that must be
able to operate independently or to take the lead in
maintaining law and order and fighting the insurgency.
(C) The number of regular police that must be trained and
equipped to maintain law and order.
(D) The ability of Iraq's Federal ministries and provincial
and local governments to

[[Page S12670]]

independently sustain, direct, and coordinate Iraq's security
forces.
(5) The criteria to be used to evaluate progress toward
meeting such conditions.
(6) A schedule for meeting such conditions, an assessment
of the extent to which such conditions have been met,
information regarding variables that could alter that
schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that
schedule.
(7) A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased
redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as
each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected
contingencies may arise.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by way of preliminary debate on the Iraq
amendment, I would simply advise my distinguished colleague from
Michigan and other Senators that we were given, in a timely manner, the
amendment that has just been sent to the desk by the Senator from
Michigan, known as the leadership Iraq amendment. Senator Frist, I, and
others have simply taken that amendment and amended it in several ways,
and that then becomes the Warner-Frist amendment.
So I just inform colleagues, basically, we are dealing with the basic
amendment as provided by the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished
Senator from Nevada, and others. We have modified our leadership
amendment in a manner which we think is consistent with the strong
needs of our country to achieve the objectives that we have in Iraq.
Having said that, I think we have pretty well concluded business for
the day on this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I agree with the
description which my dear friend from Virginia has provided, that I did
provide him with our amendment. Even though our amendment has a later
number, it was the amendment which was first provided. The Senator from
Virginia, after consultation with his leader and others, has made some
modifications in our amendment and that amendment, under the unanimous
consent agreement which will be voted on first, is the amendment
basically that we drafted over here with the modifications made by the
Senator from Virginia and others. So that is the chronology, that is
the history, and that is the order we will be voting on and will be
debating these on Monday under the unanimous consent agreement.
There are some differences. I would not describe them as major
differences but, nonetheless, there are some differences that now exist
between the two versions, and we can debate which is the preferable
version. But in any event, under either version, it strikes me that
there is clearly a call here for some changes in course in policy in
Iraq. But that again is something we can debate further on Monday.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I do believe it is
very wise for the Senate to have this debate. We are prepared for that
debate.
I would simply advise colleagues--and the leadership later will in
wrap-up give more specifics--my understanding is there will be a vote
at 5:30, preceded by 1 hour of debate on that vote, which is on one of
the appropriations bills. That is my understanding. Can the Presiding
Officer advise me as to what the vote is that is scheduled on Monday at
5:30?
I am advised it is the Energy and Water Conference Report. Am I
reasonably correct in preliminarily informing the Senate that vote will
take place at about 5:30, and the 1 hour prior to it will be reserved
for debate on that? I interpret that to mean that from the time the
Senate comes in on Monday up until 4:30, that would be available for
the important debate on the respective Iraqi amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, also I believe the debate on
the second-degree amendments to the Graham amendment would occur on
Monday since the only time on Tuesday prior to votes on the amendments
would be 30 minutes equally divided and that would be needed, perhaps,
for both second degrees to Graham and the Iraqi amendments, all wrapped
into that 30 minutes.
There may be and I think there probably would be debate on Monday on
the second-degree amendments, referred to in this unanimous consent
agreement, to the Graham amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I
can visit here for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Michigan and I desire to accommodate
colleagues. Again, the hour from 4:30 to 5:30 is on the appropriations
bill. The time from whenever the Senate convenes on Monday up until
4:30 is subject to debate on the Iraqi amendments; indeed, if Senators
want to comment on the bill and such amendments as may be filed in
connection with the Graham issues.
I think we would urge our colleagues to try to contact our respective
offices as to their needs for time to vote on these matters so the
Senator from Michigan and I can try to accommodate them. But I also
wish to remind colleagues that presumably the vote on the
appropriations bill starts at 5:30, and by all measures should be
completed sometime after 6. Then, subject to leadership, I would think
there would be time that evening, Monday evening, to continue votes for
those Senators whose travel plans otherwise do not enable them to get
here before 4:30. So the same framework for debate that can take place
prior to 4:30 can take place after 6:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I agree with his
comments and I reinforce the importance of our colleagues notifying our
offices and our cloakrooms if they desire to have time to speak on
Monday afternoon so we can schedule that time. It would be very helpful
for us to be so informed as early as possible on Monday. I want to
reiterate there are two groups of amendments we are talking about here
that will need to be debated Monday. One is the Iraqi amendment. The
other one is the second-degree amendments to the Graham amendment. We
are going to have to fit all that in on Monday afternoon, and possibly,
as the Senator from Virginia mentions, after the vote on Monday. So it
is important that our colleagues let us, our offices and our
cloakrooms, know on Monday morning if they want time on either or both
of those subjects. We will try to work the best we can and protect
everybody's opportunity to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I pause momentarily.
Mr. President, I think our respective staffs can incorporate in the
wrap-up document such that the Senator from Michigan and I will share
equally the time before 4:30, after leadership, and in that way be able
to work more effectively with our colleagues.
Mr. LEVIN. That is fine.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again thank all Senators. I thank our
staff. I thank the professional staff of the Senate, who in many ways
have made possible the completion of this bill. We are owing a debt of
gratitude to many to get where we are.
Mr. LEVIN. We are almost there. We are going to be there on Monday.
We thought we would be there tonight, but we will on Monday.
Mr. WARNER. In a way we are. We have charted the course.
Mr. LEVIN. Fixed stars.

Amendment No. 2485, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, we have some
cleared amendments we can do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the previously agreed-to
amendment 2485 be modified with a technical correction. I send that
modification to the desk. I understand it has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2485), as modified, is as follows:

On page 286, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 1073. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE
COORDINATION COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the National
Foreign Language Coordination Council (in this section
referred to as the ``Council''), which shall be an
independent establishment as defined under section 104 of
title 5, United States Code.
(b) Membership.--The Council shall consist of the following
members or their designees:
(1) The National Language Director, who shall serve as the
chairperson of the Council.
(2) The Secretary of Education.
(3) The Secretary of Defense.
(4) The Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(6) The Attorney General.
(7) The Director of National Intelligence.

[[Page S12671]]

(8) The Secretary of Labor.
(9) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
(10) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(11) The Secretary of Commerce.
(12) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(13) The Secretary of the Treasury.
(14) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(15) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(16) The Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank
of the United States.
(17) The heads of such other Federal agencies as the
Council considers appropriate.
(c) Responsibilities.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall be charged with--
(A) developing a national foreign language strategy, within
18 months of the date of enactment of this section, in
consultation with--
(i) State and local government agencies;
(ii) academic sector institutions;
(iii) foreign language related interest groups;
(iv) business associations;
(v) industry;
(vi) heritage associations; and
(vii) other relevant stakeholders;
(B) conducting a survey of the status of Federal agency
foreign language and area expertise and agency needs for such
expertise; and
(C) monitoring the implementation of such strategy
through--
(i) application of current and recently enacted laws; and
(ii) the promulgation and enforcement of rules and
regulations.
(2) Strategy content.--The strategy developed under
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) identification of crucial priorities across all
sectors;
(B) identification and evaluation of Federal foreign
language programs and activities, including--
(i) any duplicative or overlapping programs that may impede
efficiency;
(ii) recommendations on coordination;
(iii) program enhancements; and
(iv) allocation of resources so as to maximize use of
resources;
(C) needed national policies and corresponding legislative
and regulatory actions in support of, and allocation of
designated resources to, promising programs and initiatives
at all levels (Federal, State, and local), especially in the
less commonly taught languages that are seen as critical for
national security and global competitiveness during the next
20 to 50 years;
(D) effective ways to increase public awareness of the need
for foreign language skills and career paths in all sectors
that can employ those skills, with the objective of
increasing support for foreign language study among--
(i) Federal, State, and local leaders;
(ii) students;
(iii) parents;
(iv) elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational
institutions; and
(v) employers;
(E) recommendations for incentives for related educational
programs, including foreign language teacher training;
(F) coordination of cross-sector efforts, including public-
private partnerships;
(G) coordination initiatives to develop a strategic posture
for language research and recommendations for funding for
applied foreign language research into issues of national
concern;
(H) recommendations for assistance for--
(i) the development of foreign language achievement
standards; and
(ii) corresponding assessments for the elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary education levels, including the
National Assessment of Educational Progress in foreign
languages;
(I) recommendations for development of--
(i) language skill-level certification standards;
(ii) frameworks for pre-service and professional
development study for those who teach foreign language;
(iii) suggested graduation criteria for foreign language
studies and appropriate non-language studies, such as--

(I) international business;
(II) national security;
(III) public administration;
(IV) health care;
(V) engineering;
(VI) law;
(VII) journalism; and
(VIII) sciences;

(J) identification of and means for replicating best
practices at all levels and in all sectors, including best
practices from the international community; and
(K) recommendations for overcoming barriers in foreign
language proficiency.
(d) Submission of Strategy to President and Congress.--Not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
section, the Council shall prepare and transmit to the
President and the relevant committees of Congress the
strategy required under subsection (c).
(e) Meetings.--The Council may hold such meetings, and sit
and act at such times and places, as the Council considers
appropriate, but shall meet in formal session at least 2
times a year. State and local government agencies and other
organizations (such as academic sector institutions, foreign
language-related interest groups, business associations,
industry, and heritage community organizations) shall be
invited, as appropriate, to public meetings of the Council at
least once a year.
(f) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Director may--
(A) appoint, without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing the competitive service, such
personnel as the Director considers necessary; and
(B) compensate such personnel without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
that title.
(2) Detail of government employees.--Upon request of the
Council, any Federal Government employee may be detailed to
the Council without reimbursement, and such detail shall be
without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege
(3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the
Council, the Director may procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code.
(4) Travel expenses.--Council members and staff shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Council.
(5) Security clearance.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
appropriate Federal agencies or departments shall cooperate
with the Council in expeditiously providing to the Council
members and staff appropriate security clearances to the
extent possible pursuant to existing procedures and
requirements.
(B) Exception.--No person shall be provided with access to
classified information under this section without the
appropriate required security clearance access.
(6) Compensation.--The rate of pay for any employee of the
Council (including the Director) may not exceed the rate
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(g) Powers.--
(1) Delegation.--Any member or employee of the Council may,
if authorized by the Council, take any action that the
Council is authorized to take in this section.
(2) Information.--
(A) Council authority to secure.--The Council may secure
directly from any Federal agency such information, consistent
with Federal privacy laws, including The Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and Department of
Education's General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C.
1232(h)), the Council considers necessary to carry out its
responsibilities.
(B) Requirement to furnish requested information.--Upon
request of the Director, the head of such agency shall
furnish such information to the Council.
(3) Donations.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(4) Mail.--The Council may use the United States mail in
the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal agencies.
(h) Conferences, Newsletter, and Website.--In carrying out
this section, the Council--
(1) may arrange Federal, regional, State, and local
conferences for the purpose of developing and coordinating
effective programs and activities to improve foreign language
education;
(2) may publish a newsletter concerning Federal, State, and
local programs that are effectively meeting the foreign
language needs of the nation; and
(3) shall create and maintain a website containing
information on the Council and its activities, best practices
on language education, and other relevant information.
(i) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Council shall prepare and transmit to the President and the
relevant committees of Congress a report that describes--
(1) the activities of the Council;
(2) the efforts of the Council to improve foreign language
education and training; and
(3) impediments to the use of a National Foreign Language
program, including any statutory and regulatory restrictions.
(j) Establishment of a National Language Director.--
(1) In general.--There is established a National Language
Director who shall be appointed by the President. The
National Language Director shall be a nationally recognized
individual with credentials and abilities across the sectors
to be involved with creating and implementing long-term
solutions to achieving national foreign language and cultural
competency.
(2) Responsibilities.--The National Language Director
shall--
(A) develop and monitor the implementation of a national
foreign language strategy across all sectors;
(B) establish formal relationships among the major
stakeholders in meeting the needs of the Nation for improved
capabilities in foreign languages and cultural understanding,
including Federal, State, and local government agencies,
academia, industry, labor, and heritage communities; and
(C) coordinate and lead a public information campaign that
raises awareness of public and private sector careers
requiring foreign language skills and cultural understanding,
with the objective of increasing interest in and support for
the study of foreign

[[Page S12672]]

languages among national leaders, the business community,
local officials, parents, and individuals.
(k) Encouragement of State Involvement.--
(1) State contact persons.--The Council shall consult with
each State to provide for the designation by each State of an
individual to serve as a State contact person for the purpose
of receiving and disseminating information and communications
received from the Council.
(2) State interagency councils and lead agencies.--Each
State is encouraged to establish a State interagency council
on foreign language coordination or designate a lead agency
for the State for the purpose of assuming primary
responsibility for coordinating and interacting with the
Council and State and local government agencies as necessary.
(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out this
section.

Amendment No. 1550, As Further Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the previously agreed-to amendment
1550 be modified and I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1550) as further modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PILOT PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN LINGUIST RESERVE CORPS.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense (referred to
in this section as the ``Secretary''), through the National
Security Education Program, shall conduct a 3-year pilot
project to establish the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps,
which shall be composed of United States citizens with
advanced levels of proficiency in foreign languages who would
be available, upon request from the President, to perform any
services or duties with respect to such foreign languages in
the Federal Government as the President may require.
(b) Implementation.--In establishing the Civilian Linguist
Reserve Corps, the Secretary, after reviewing the findings
and recommendations contained in the report required under
section 325 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003 (Public Law 107-306; 116 Stat. 2393), shall--
(1) identify several foreign languages that are critical
for the national security of the United States and the
relative priority of each such language;
(2) identify United States citizens with advanced levels of
proficiency in those foreign languages who would be available
to perform the services and duties referred to in subsection
(a);
(3) cooperate with other Federal agencies with national
security responsibilities to implement a procedure for
calling for the performance of the services and duties
referred to in subsection (a); and
(4) implement a call for the performance of such services
and duties.
(c) Contract Authority.--In establishing the Civilian
Linguist Reserve Corps, the Secretary may enter into
contracts with appropriate agencies or entities.
(d) Feasibility Study.--During the course of the pilot
project, the Secretary shall conduct a study of the best
practices in implementing the Civilian Linguist Reserve
Corps, including--
(1) administrative structure;
(2) languages to be offered;
(3) number of language specialists needed for each
language;
(4) Federal agencies who may need language services;
(5) compensation and other operating costs;
(6) certification standards and procedures;
(7) security clearances;
(8) skill maintenance and training; and
(9) the use of private contractors to supply language
specialists.
(e) Reports.--
(1) Evaluation reports.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the
expiration of the 3-year period beginning on such date of
enactment, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an
evaluation report on the pilot project conducted under this
section.
(B) Contents.--Each report required under subparagraph (A)
shall contain information on the operation of the pilot
project, the success of the pilot project in carrying out the
objectives of the establishment of a Civilian Linguist
Reserve Corps, and recommendations for the continuation or
expansion of the pilot project.
(2) Final report.--Not later than 6 months after the
completion of the pilot project, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a final report summarizing the lessons learned,
best practices, and recommendations for full implementation
of the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $3,100,000 for fiscal year 2006 to carry
out the pilot project under this section.
(g) Offset--The amounts authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(4) are hereby reduced by $3,100,000 from
operation and maintenance, Air Force.

Mr. LEVIN. I understand this also is technical?
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. It was cleared on both sides. Has the
vote been taken?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent has been granted.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, noting that tomorrow is Veterans Day, I
rise to discuss an amendment which will make it clear that returning
combat veterans of the National Guard and Reserve will receive the same
consideration as other combat veterans when applying for a Federal job.
I am offering this bipartisan amendment along with Senators Vitter,
Chambliss, Wyden, Landrieu, Schumer, Clinton and Dayton.
Since the time of the Civil War, veterans of the Armed Services have
been given some degree of preference in the consideration process for
employment with the Federal Government. This usually takes the form of
an additional 5 points added to the score received by a veteran on the
test they must take to qualify for the job. If the veteran is disabled,
he or she receives an additional 5 points for a total of 10 added
points. This program is known as ``Veterans Preference.''
The way the law reads now, veterans applying for a Federal job can
receive preferential consideration if they served on active duty during
a war in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been
authorized and have been separated from the Armed Forces under
honorable conditions.
Unfortunately, the term ``separated'' is not defined in the Veterans
Preference law and this lack of clarity has had the practical effect of
causing some veterans, who saw combat as mobilized members of the Guard
or Reserve, to be denied the veterans preference they had earned.
That is exactly what happened to an Army reservist from my own State
of Illinois.
Earlier this year, I was contacted by a young woman serving in the
Army Reserve as a military police officer. Her name is Kylene Conlon.
Since 9/11, Kylene has been mobilized twice. The first time she spent
nearly a year in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The second time she spent a full
year in Iraq.
Upon her return she learned that the United States Marshals Service
was hiring. When she requested an application, she was informed that
the hiring program was open only to those eligible for Veterans
Preference. She provided copies of her two different Department of
Defense forms verifying her overseas service over two major
mobilizations, yet she was told that that was not good enough for
veterans preference. She was told that she had to have a discharge. But
Kylene did not have a discharge certificate, which she would receive
after ending military service because she had not quit the Army
Reserve. She had come home from Iraq and gone back to attending weekend
drills and annual training periods. She had two Department of Defense
forms 214 which stated that her type of separation was a ``release from
active duty.'' To be given a discharge certificate, Kylene would have
to quit the Army Reserve.
She was stunned. She could not believe that the Federal Government
would require her to quit the Army Reserve before being able to receive
the veterans preference she had earned. So, she came to my office for
help.
I sent a letter to the Marshals Service in the Department of Justice
to ask why Kylene Conlon was being denied veterans preference.
They wrote back. Here is what their letter said:

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the
veterans preference program for the Federal Government in
accordance with statute and regulation. Unfortunately,
service as a member of the Army Reserve does not qualify for
veterans preference. The OPM VetGuide states ``to receive
preference, a veteran must have been separated from active
duty in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge.'' Ms.
Conlon has not been discharged from the Army.

Every word of that letter was 100 percent true. OPM administers the
program according to the law. OPM's guide requires a discharge.
Reservists completing a mobilization and returning to part-time status
don't receive discharges. Therefore, reservists were being deemed
ineligible for Veterans Preference.
I knew right then that the law had to be changed.

[[Page S12673]]

My staff checked into this and found that it was that vague word
``separated'' in the current Veterans Preference law that was the
problem. Somebody could read that word and assume it means only
``discharged'' and so they had.
That was not Congress's intent. Elsewhere in Federal law, rather than
the term ``separated,'' one finds the phrase ``discharged or
released.'' That's a better phrase. It covers both those who end full-
time, active duty service completely with an honorable discharge as
well as reservists who are released after a tour of active duty and go
back to reserve duty. Troops leaving the military altogether are given
a discharge. Reservists who are simply ending a period of active duty
and reverting to their previous part-time reservist status are given a
release from active duty.
The measure which I introduce today clarifies title 5 by replacing
the vague term ``separated'' with the clearer and more precise phrase
``discharged or released.'' While this may seem a small change in
wording, it will have an important effect. It will make it absolutely
clear that a member of the National Guard or Reserve who serves
honorably in a war, campaign or expedition for which a campaign medal
has been authorized can receive full access to veterans preference in
Federal hiring. We want these honorable veterans to receive this
preference without any pressure or incentive whatsoever to terminate
their valuable service in the reserve components of our Armed Forces.
This change in the law is merely a clarification to avoid future
errors of interpretation as have occurred in the past. It will have no
effect on previous grants of veterans preference and it will in no way
limit or reduce future considerations for veterans preference
eligibility.
The measure is endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association. I am
very grateful to the managers of the Defense authorization bill for
agreeing to accept this measure as an amendment. It is important and
timely legislation as we approach Veterans Day and honor all those who
serve our Nation in uniform.
Mr. KENNEDY. I support the extension of the Defense Department's
program ensuring that its Federal contracting process in no way
supports or subsidizes the discrimination that has long been a problem
in the contracting business. The extension of the program through
September 2009 is needed to help achieve that goal.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has learned a great deal about
the effects of discrimination in denying contracting opportunities for
minority-owned businesses. The ugly reality is that contracting has
long been dominated by ``old-boy'' networks that make it very difficult
for African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans to
participate fairly in these opportunities, or even obtain information
about them.
Years of congressional hearings have shown that minorities
historically have been excluded from both public and private
construction contracts in general, and from Federal defense contracts
in particular. Since its adoption, the Defense Department program,
called the 1207 Program, has helped level the playing field for
minority contractors. But there is still more to do, as the additional
information we have received since the program was last reauthorized
makes clear.
Ever since the program was first adopted in 1986, racial and ethnic
discrimination--both overt and subtle--have continued to erect
significant barriers to minority participation in Federal contracting.
In some cases, overt discrimination has prevented minority-owned
businesses from obtaining needed loans and bonds. Prime contractors,
unions, and suppliers of goods and materials have preferred to do
business with White contractors rather than with minority firms.
We have seen repeated reports of bid-shopping and of minority
businesses being denied contracts despite submitting the lowest bid.
The Department's decision to award a growing number of defense
contracts noncompetitively has had the unfortunate effect of excluding
minority-owned businesses from a significant number of contracting
opportunities. No-bid contracts also hurt White-owned businesses, but
they disadvantage minority-owned firms in particular.
These problems affect a wide variety of areas in which the Department
offers contracts, and the problems are detailed in many recent
disparity studies, including:

City of Dallas Availability and Disparity Study, Mason
Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2002); City of Cincinnati Disparity
Study, Griffin & Strong, P.C. (2002); Ohio Multi-
Jurisdictional Disparity Studies, Mason Tillman Associates,
Ltd. (2003); Procurement Disparity Study of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, MGT of America, Inc. (2004); Alameda County
Availability Study, Mason Tillman Associates (2004); City of
New York Disparity Study, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd.
(2005).

We are also mindful that the data contained in the Department of
Commerce benchmark study supports the need for efforts to improve
contracting opportunities for minority-owned businesses.
The 1207 Program helps to correct these problems of discrimination
without imposing an undue burden on White-owned businesses. Small
businesses owned by White contractors are eligible to receive the
benefits of the program if they are socially or economically
disadvantaged.
All of us benefit when recipients of Federal opportunities reflect
America's diversity, and I am proud to support the reauthorization of
the 1207 Program.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague Chairman
Craig, for offering this amendment to correct current law, which
permits capital offenders to be buried in a national cemetery with full
military funeral honors. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of
this amendment, which would deny capital offenders a hero's funeral.
I believe that the congressional intent was crystal clear on this
issue when Congress passed two laws denying capital offenders
eligibility for burial in a national cemetery and certain funeral
benefits in 1997 and 2002. However, a loophole remains and is
vulnerable to misapplication. It is unfortunate that it took the
mistaken internment of double murderer Russell Wayne Wagner in
Arlington National Cemetery earlier this summer to shed light on this
egregious loophole.
I commend Chairman Craig's immediate response to this oversight by
quickly convening a hearing to study how big this loophole really is.
According to a study of the law conducted by the Congressional Research
Service, CRS, because Wagner's double life sentences carried the
possibility of parole, he was technically eligible for burial in a
national cemetery. Upon further study, it was determined that this same
parole loophole also would apply to Dennis Rader, the serial killer who
terrorized Kansans for over three decades.
In Kansas, we take honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice
very seriously. Entire towns make their way in the funeral procession
of the hometown hero to pay their respects and say a quiet prayer as he
or she is laid to rest. This respect was recently demonstrated in South
Haven, KS, as the community gathered en mass to honor Sgt. Evan Parker,
who died of wounds from a bomb attack during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Neighbors and fellow members of the community poured out their front
doors to silently watch the funeral procession and 150 members of the
American Legion convened to erect a barrier to block protesters from
interrupting the mourners. This is what small town America does to
honor those who gave all.
It is unconscionable that Dennis Rader, BTK for short, as he referred
to himself, who brutally bound, tortured, and killed 10 innocent
victims would be granted a hero's funeral. A criminal who is facing 10
life sentences and no less than 175 years of prison could be honored
among our Nation's heros under the law as it stands today because his
sentence included the phrase ``with parole.'' The idea that the brave
men and women of our Nation's military forces like SGT Evan Parker
could be memorialized and laid to rest in the same sacred ground as the
BTK Killer is outrageous and simply wrong.
If current law cannot prevent this brutal murderer from internment in
a national cemetery or with military funeral honors, then the law needs
to be fixed. This amendment closes the parole loophole by tying
eligibility for

[[Page S12674]]

burial in a national cemetery and military funeral honors to the
underlying action of the capital offender rather than to the sentence,
which can vary from State to State.
I understand that Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin are
including this amendment as a part of a broader manager's amendment. I
appreciate the inclusion of this important legislation that ultimately
protects the honor and memory of our Nation's heros and the hallowed
ground in which they rest.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern over
apparent discrepancies between the administration's rhetoric with
respect to our treatment of detainees, and the clear reality of the
situation.
We all agree, I hope, that individuals in the custody of the United
States must be treated humanely. We certainly agree that under no
circumstances must American military and government personnel engage in
torture. That is why we ratified the United Nations Convention Against
Torture in 1994.
And that is why Senator McCain's provision prohibiting the use of
``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment'', and adopting the Army Field
Manual as the standard for interrogation procedures passed the Senate
as part of the Defense appropriations bill by a 90 to 9 vote on October
5. It was also unanimously adopted to be included in this Defense
authorization bill.
Senator McCain's amendment simply makes it clear that the Convention
Against Torture applies without geographical limitation.
It states that conduct that is unacceptable on U.S. soil is also
unacceptable in Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Ghraib, or anywhere else the
United States government may be holding detainees.
President Bush has repeatedly stated that captives are to be treated
humanely, and just this week he reiterated his policy that:

In this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law.
We don't torture.

And yet, the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, has been
making a great effort to lobby Members of Congress to alter the McCain
provision by exempting the CIA and members of the intelligence
community from its prohibition on torture.
According to Human Rights Watch, the language he circulated on
October 20th proposes that:
``Subsection (a)''--that is, the prohibition against cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment --``shall not apply with respect
to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with
respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that
are carried out by and element of the United States Government other
than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution
and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States
is a party, if the President determines that such operations are vital
to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist
attack.''
Why? The President has stated that it is not his policy to torture.
We all know the catastrophic effects that even the appearance of
impropriety in this area has on the image of the United States abroad.
We know the irreparable harm that reports of abuse and secret detention
centers do to our war effort. And, we know that torture does not
produce good and effective intelligence. So why fuel that fire by
enacting a specific exemption to our long-standing policy of humane
treatment?
Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that the CIA has
been ``hiding and interrogating'' its most valuable prisoners at so-
called ``black sites'' at several locations in Eastern Europe and Asia.
If this is true, it would allow the intelligence community to engage
in ``unconventional'' interrogation procedures at secret locations
outside of Congressional oversight or military directives on the
treatment of prisoners.
Earlier this week, I wrote a letter to the chairman and vice chairman
of the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting that the committee
conduct hearings into these allegations that the CIA is holding
prisoners in ``black sites'' around the world.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has jurisdiction over the entire
intelligence community. And therefore, it is critical that it have
access to all information and material related to these disturbing
allegations.
Moreover, I believe that the committee must do a better job with its
oversight responsibilities, particularly as they relate to detention,
interrogation, and rendition activities by our intelligence agencies.
The fact is that our policy to date with respect to detainees has
been confused, and that that confusion has led to disturbing
allegations of abuse and even torture.
The Senate has already acted to clarify the rules by passing the
McCain amendment. I have heard it argued that this will somehow ``tie
the hands'' of the President in his prosecution of the war, but I
strongly disagree.
In the first place, the President himself insists that detainees
should be treated humanely. We are simply acting to codify his policy.
Secondly, the Constitution is perfectly clear with regard to the
authority for regulating the United States military: that authority
lies with the Congress.
Some claim that the Founding Fathers intended the executive branch to
have a free hand in prosecuting this Nation's wars.
But their consideration and deliberation on this issue resulted in
Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that Congress
shall have the power to ``make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water,'' and also ``To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces.''
It is clear that this administration has been inconsistent and
mistake-prone in regulating the Armed Forces with respect to the
treatment of detainees.
There is the case of Captain Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne
Division, who attempted for 17 months to determine what regulations
were in force.
He determined that, years after President Bush had declared that all
prisoners, regardless of their Geneva status, were to be treated
``humanely,'' the definition of what constituted humane treatment was
still being left to individual commanders.
He reports:

We've got people with different views of what ``humane''
means and there's no Army statement that says ``this is the
standard for humane treatment for prisoners to Army
officers.'' Army officers are left to come up with their own
definition of humane treatment.

The results of this lapse are well documented. Even the Pentagon's
own reports are highly critical:
The Taguba Report found ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant,
and wanton criminal abuses,'' which the report described as
``systemic.''
Along the same lines, the Mikolashek Report examined 94 cases of
confirmed abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and found that ``ambiguous
guidance from command on the treatment of detainees'' was a
contributing factor.
Further, the Fay-Jones Report implicated 35 soldiers, including the
top two military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib prison, in 44
cases of abuse.
So the problem goes far beyond a ``few, isolated bad apples.''
Decent, hardworking American soldiers simply do not know how they may
or may not treat their captives.
I note that on Tuesday, the Department of Defense released a new
directive banning the use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogations, or to
harass or intimidate prisoners. I welcome this directive, but it is too
little, too late. The ban comes after dozens of confirmed reports of
soldiers using dogs to intimidate inmates of Abu Ghraib, and it is
limited in scope and details.
The McCain amendment would give a clear baseline standard of human
rights, which all Americans will always recognize--the rights which our
Founders believed were inalienable rights; the rights they chose to
enshrine in our Constitution.
It is not for the Vice President, or anyone else for that matter, to
circumvent those rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
This week the White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, tried to
justify the exemption, saying, ``You're talking about people like
Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.''
I agree that these are terrible men, but we must also consider men
like Mr.

[[Page S12675]]

Dilawar, an innocent taxi driver who was beaten to death in
Afghanistan.
We are talking about thousands of innocent Iraqis rounded up in
sweeping neighborhood raids and systematically abused.
And we are talking about their friends and families, and an entire
generation of young people around the world who are watching and
judging the actions of the United States.
If we fail, in their eyes, to live up to our ideals, if the promise
of America is reduced to self-serving hypocrisy, then I fear we will
breed more terrorists than we can ever stop.
In fact, the scale of the problem is such that the narrowly-focused
Pentagon reports do not provide us an adequate picture.
In conclusion, let me state this--it is essential that we answer
these three fundamental questions:
Is our current policy legal?
Is it moral?
And does it work?
From my work on this issue in the Judiciary Committee and
Intelligence Committee, I fear the answer to all three is ``No.''
I believe that Congress did not intend to permit torture abroad when
it ratified the Convention Against Torture. The overwhelming support
enjoyed by Mr. McCain's amendment is evidence of that.
Furthermore, I do not believe that violating fundamental human rights
is ever justified.
There are some absolutes in this world, and some activities that the
United States simply cannot condone.
I am convinced that our detainee policy has been a costly failure.
Far from making us safer, the aggressive interrogation of terror
suspects has served to breed more terrorists, and to make us more
vulnerable to attack.
Should Congress refuse to statutorily codify the legal and humane
treatment of prisoners, we risk endangering those Americans who become
prisoners themselves.
We must set an honorable example for the entire international
community; to do otherwise would be a betrayal of the values we hold
dear.
American values, such as the humane treatment of detainees, are truly
at the very core of this debate.
We must not fail--America's future will rest on it.

Amendment No. 2519

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment introduced by
Senator Levin and several colleagues that formulates our military
strategy and foreign policy in Iraq.
We need clear, defined benchmarks that lay out how and when we can
begin a structured downsizing of the 160,000 Americans currently
serving in Iraq.
Increasingly, Americans are demanding answers about how we intend to
transition sovereign control of Iraq to the newly elected government.
If we do not heed the call of the American people, popular support
for this war will continue to wane.
We must have a well-reasoned approach that will allow our Armed
Forces to remove themselves from the constant crossfire between Sunnis
and Shia.
As we look forward, I believe the parliamentary election on Dec. 15
represents one such opportunity.
For the first time in history, the Iraqi people will have
democratically elected their permanent leaders to serve full 4-year
terms. Their constitution, problematic as it may be, has been adopted,
and it is time for Iraqis to take greater control.
A growing perception is that U.S. military forces buttress the
Shiites. As a result, we pay a high cost, in lives lost and casualties.
We need to change course to remove ourselves from being the literal
and figurative target of Sunni enmity.
Frankly, this battle cannot be won militarily by American forces.
A structured downsizing of our presence in Iraq will not only take
our service men and women out of harm's way, but it will also force
Iraq's religious and political leaders to confront the insurgency and
find a balance of power acceptable to Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.
The first and primary impetus for transitioning our forces will be a
better trained Iraqi Security Force.
Ultimately, the Iraqis will have to defend themselves and confront
the insurgency, both militarily and politically. The question is when.
Training of the Iraqi Security Forces has been too slow, and the
administration has been less than forthright about the capabilities of
the Iraqi troops on the ground.
In the interim period ahead, U.S. forces may continue to have a
significant role to play, especially in the areas of training and
rebuilding infrastructure. But this requires a change of focus for
American troops from leading combat missions to buttressing and backing
Iraqis as they seek to quell the insurgency and growing violence.
For starters, we need to increase the number of U.S. military
personnel providing initial training to the Iraqi forces from the
current 1,200. This number is frankly inadequate, and raises questions
about our military's priorities in Iraq.
This does not necessarily mean that all Iraqi forces will be trained
to the level of U.S. forces--that is unlikely--but the real benchmark
is for Iraqi units to have a basic level of training and equipment to
safeguard their towns, cities and communities.
The Pentagon recently estimated that an additional 125,000 Iraqi
security personnel will be needed to bring total endstrength to
325,000.
If it is going to take a force of 325,000 Iraqis, then it is
incumbent upon the U.S. military to prioritize this training and put
enhanced efforts into recruiting qualified individuals to serve.
It is only fair to our service men and women, and to their families,
if we put every effort into properly training Iraqis so that American
troops can come home as soon as possible.
America needs to change course, reassess its mission in light of this
escalating insurgency, place more responsibility on Iraq for a
negotiated settlement, and begin a structured drawdown of American
forces.
This structured drawdown must come in the form of a consistent,
planned strategy. This amendment uses the word ``redeployment,'' which
I frankly believe is confusing.
Our military leaders must establish a framework for a careful,
cautious removal of our troops from Iraq, in conjunction with the
rising number of trained Iraqis.
This might mean the removal of 10,000 American troops for every
20,000 trained Iraqis, or a similar but concrete formula.
Certainly, we should prioritize what troops are most needed in the
training process and begin to drawdown our endstrength in other areas.
This amendment rightly requires the President to report regularly on
American policy in regards to Iraq and our military operations there.
The administration needs to define and lay out an endgame.
The Levin provision ensures that Congress will be receiving regular
updates on the administration's strategy in Iraq, and as it must be
unclassified, will provide the American people the opportunity to see
whether there truly is a plan for success.
Again, I believe it is time to reevaluate our policy and strategies
in Iraq.
We have lost over 2,000 American troops, and tens of thousands of
Iraqis have died.
Americans are tired of hearing daily about the chaos and violence
that has beset Iraq. With American soldiers and scores of Iraqi
civilians dying every day, there has to be a better course.
In my view, it is clear that now is the time to consider a
comprehensive plan for the structured downsizing of our mission, while
we greatly increase the emphasis on training Iraqis to protect
themselves.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I want to commend my
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for taking a step forward to
help our soldiers who are wounded, and removed from the combat zone for
medical treatment.
Under current law, when soldiers are removed from a combat zone, even
if it is for a severe wound, they lose all of their special duty pay,
which for some enlisted soldiers can reduce their pay by half. It does
not seem right to cut a soldier's pay at the time of an injury when
that soldier and his family will face personal and financial hardships.
For example, if a young soldier is sent to Walter Reed Hospital to
recover, it is often important to have family nearby to assist in
recovery. But that often means a young wife or husband must leave their
home and job to help the

[[Page S12676]]

wounded soldier. They may face new temporary housing costs or added
expenses just to live nearby and support in the soldier's recovery.
Thanks to action in our Armed Services Committee, there is a
provision to continue some of the specialty pays for imminent danger
for our wounded soldiers as long as they are in the hospital. The House
Defense authorization includes a similar provision that creates a new
pay provision specifically for rehabilitation from combat-related
injuries.
I support such provisions, and in fact, I introduced S. 461, the
Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act, to maintain full pay for
soldiers during recovery. I was proud to have Senators Kennedy,
Clinton, and Salazar as cosponsors.
My commitment to this legislation was based on hearing the plight of
wounded soldiers. My West Virginia caseworkers have heard from many
soldiers and families who are struggling. While everyone is tragically
aware of the more than 2,000 soldiers, including 15 West Virginians,
who have lost their lives, we do not hear as much about our wounded
soldiers.
Current estimates are that 16,220 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and 104 are West Virginians. Thanks to better medical
care and better equipment, when it is available, our soldiers are
surviving devastating attacks, but too often at high costs including
the loss of limbs. Such soldiers face long recoveries, and they need
their families nearby to support them. But there are extra costs for
families at this time, and we should not be substantially reducing the
pay of our wounded heroes.
As the conference committee is appointed and we begin the hard work
of resolving the differences between these two bills, I hope that we
will keep in mind the struggles and financial hardships of our wounded
soldiers and their families. We need to provide them with adequate pay
in honor of their distinguished service.

____________________