Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds Compensation Act

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.

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. President, I recently returned from Iraq where I am proud to report that the men and women of the American military continue to perform magnificently. They are the best of America, and we owe them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude.

Today, I am introducing legislation to strengthen our military and enact a ``Military Family Bill of Rights.'' My hope is that Congress will act quickly to build the military ready to meet the challenges of this century. That requires a larger Army, a larger Marine Corps, and better policies for Americans in uniform and their families.

We must begin by building a military sized and shaped for the challenges of the future. The military today, in particular the Army and the Marine Corps, is too small for the missions it faces. The evidence is everywhere.

In the past, the Army gave units 2 years to reset, re-train, and prepare between combat deployments. Instead the 3rd Infantry Division is headed back to Iraq after only one year. The 101st Airborne and the 4th Infantry Divisions are headed back later this year after less than 2 years. The First Marine Expeditionary Force is already in the middle of its second deployment to Iraq.

Even with this timetable, we have made ends meet only through large contributions from the National Guard and Reserve. But in planning the next rotation of U.S. forces, we are running out of Guard and Reserve units to call on because they've already been deployed. Fourteen of the National Guard's 15 most combat-ready units are either in Iraq now, recently demobilized, or on alert for duty in the coming year. Of the 205,000 Army Reservists, only about 37,000 remain available for deployment for the types of missions needed in Iraq. Last year the Army dipped into the Individual Ready Reserve. More recently, the Army has even begun to call back military retirees, ranging in age from their mid-40s to their late 60s.

The situation is so grave that Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, recently warned that the reserves are ``rapidly degenerating into a broken force''--and cautioned that at this rate we will not be able to meet the needs of ``future missions.''

The war on terror--which we know requires a comprehensive approach-- will have a military component. Surprises happen and our armed forces must be ready to meet those challenges, wherever and whenever they occur.

Since the end of the Cold War, every major commitment of American military power, including the ``Air War'' in Kosovo, has required a sizeable commitment of American ground forces, at the very least to provide post-conflict security and stability. There's no technological substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of wishful thinking.

The CIA's internal think-tank, the National Intelligence Council, recently drew an important conclusion about conflict over the next 15 years: ``Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism, and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in certain regions.'' That's a warning about the danger of failed states--and this should be a wake-up call for American strategy.

Failed states can become havens for terrorists. It was a failed state in Afghanistan that provided a training ground for al-Qaida. It was a failed state where al-Qaida made its plans, grew its forces, and emerged to threaten our national security.

We need a comprehensive foreign policy strategy to deal with failed states, but we must also have a military ready to act if necessary. For the foreseeable future, the United States will need a

larger ground force. Failure to build one now will only diminish our national security in the future.

The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing Army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace or secure a failed state. Those missions require an investment in the men and women of the American military--to expand their number, and to increase the number of forces that specialize in certain skills.

To meet these needs, this legislation will expand the Active Duty Army by 30,000 and the Marines by 10,000 personnel.

The men and women of the American military are sustained by the bonds they share within their unit, and by the love and strength they draw from home--from their families, their spouses, their children, their parents. Military families are unsung heroes who receive neither medals nor parades--giving everything they can to the men and women they love, men and women who have been called to war. They answered the call. And so must we--with a new commitment to smarter defense policies, like those I outlined earlier, and better care for military families.

So the legislation I offer today also includes a Military Family Bill of Rights, a set of policies enshrined in law, to provide assistance to the families of the American military.

Investing in military families isn't just an act of compassion--it's a smart investment in America's military. Good commanders know that while you may recruit an individual soldier or Marine, you ``retain'' a family. Nearly 50 percent of America's service members are married today. If we want to retain our most experienced service members, especially the non-commissioned officers that are the backbone of the Army and Marine Corps, we have to keep faith with their families. If we don't, and those experienced, enlisted leaders begin to leave, America will have a broken, ``hollow'' military.

We can begin by increasing the financial support military families receive. We can help them meet the increased expenses every military family faces when a loved-one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for example, take a cut in pay when called to active duty. Some employers make up the difference in lost wages. We should reward those patriotic business leaders. And since small businesses don't have the workforces that make it possible to spread such costs, we should offer a Small Business Tax Credit to those who make up the difference between a reservist's civilian and military pay. This legislation would also establish Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Grants to buttress existing loan programs that help small-businesses survive when a vital employee, or even the owner, is mobilized. It also creates the Reservists Enterprise Transition and Sustainability Task Force to help small businesses prepare for and cope with the mobilization of reservist-employees and owners. For all service members, this legislation permits penalty free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, such as increased child-care and other costs.

As many as one-in-five members of the National Guard and Reserves don't have health insurance. That is bad policy and bad for our national security. When units are mobilized, they count on all their personnel. But when a member of the National Guard or Reserve is mobilized, and unit members fail physicals because they haven't seen a doctor in 2 years, that's bad for readiness and that's bad for unit effectiveness. As part of the Military Family Bill of Rights, we will extend military health insurance eligibility to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether mobilized or not.

One of the unfortunate truths about war is that it takes lives--and mostly young lives. For their survivors, much of life remains, and we must be generous in our efforts to help them put their lives back together. Almost a year ago, I proposed increasing the military's death benefit to $250,000. When combined with the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, a family would receive $500,000 when a loved-one dies in the service of our nation. No one can ever put a price on a life, but we ought to do what we can to help families coping with the worst of news. The President recently embraced a formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I'm glad he has joined this effort.

Our generosity must not stop there. At present, survivors of those killed in action have 180 days to move out of military housing. But for those with young children in school, 180 days may mean starting a school year in one State, and finishing it in another. With all the disruption the loss of a parent will bring to their lives, survivors should have the flexibility to stay in their homes for one year after the death of a service member. It's the least we can do for those who have paid the ultimate price.

But let's be honest: No piece of legislation will ever anticipate all the needs of America's military families. Someone will always fall through the cracks. And the legislation I intend to offer will try to fix that. Take the case of Jay Briseno. Jay was wounded in Iraq and left paralyzed from the neck down. The law authorizes the VA to provide $11,000 to modify a disabled veteran's vehicle, but it doesn't provide the resources a family needs to buy the specially out-fitted vehicle Jay needed. In his case, a generous member of the community donated the van the Briseno's now use to drive Jay to doctors appointments and hospital visits. And we are all grateful for that act of generosity. But no family should ever have to be so dependent on charity to meet a basic need.

Americans will do everything in our power to help military families. But not all Americans can afford to buy modified minivans for wounded veterans, and not all military families have the same needs. So as part of my Military Family Bill of Rights, we will establish a Military Family Relief Fund. Every American who pays taxes will be able to contribute by checking a box on their income tax returns. Just as we let Americans donate a few dollars to finance our presidential elections on their tax forms, we should give them this opportunity to say thank you to our troops. The program will meet the needs we can't expect with the flexibility and responsiveness our service members, veterans, and their families deserve.

Supporting military families must also extend beyond service in uniform--with programs across government to help with jobs, VA benefits, healthcare, and education.

Veterans possess great leadership and technical skills, but they often lack the financial resources to turn that potential into a viable enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this number rises to 28 percent. So the legislation I introduce today will create a new program, administered by the Small Business Administration, to provide very-low interest loans, up to $100,000, to help veterans start new small businesses.

But in this time of war, we have another obligation to meet the needs of those suffering with the experience of war.

The Pentagon believes that as many as 100,000 new combat veterans across the country will need some level of mental health care. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported as many as 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Fewer than 40 percent of those sought help. Military officials and mental health providers predict that up to 30 percent of returning soldiers will require psychiatric services associated with their experience in war. Through July of last year, 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries--and 20 percent of those claims were for psychological conditions. These are levels not seen since the Vietnam War.

Our VA medical facilities are not ready for increased demands for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact only 86 of 163 VA Medical Centers have PTSD treatment centers. We must do better. The wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot sit back and wait for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive.

Soldiers and Marines returning from war want to go home. They don't want to do anything that could jeopardize

their homecoming. That's what happened to Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Reservist from Belchertown, MA. When he was leaving Iraq, his first instinct was to report traumatic memories of things he had seen in the war. But someone told him it might delay his return home, so Jeff kept quiet. But the safety, security, and joy of homecoming eluded Jeff. Haunted by the war and what he had seen, he began to drink heavily. He was plagued by recurring nightmares, and began talking about suicide. Last summer, Jeff took his own life. Jeff's story is a preventable tragedy, and a call to action. As part of the legislation I plan, keeping faith with Jeff's family who have become committed advocates in his memory, we will expand PTSD programs within the VA and require outreach efforts to find the veterans who need the care.

Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families--whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans.

Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. Each of us can do something to ease their burden--but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the opportunity to serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice life, limb or the ability to sleep without war's nightmares. We owe them not just thanks and best wishes, but action here in Congress. In today's ever-changing and perilous world, there is not a moment to lose.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Jeffords and Rockefeller.

This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called ``Parents as Scholars''. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort.

We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first''. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency.

As we have seen in Maine, education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and has given parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance.

``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2005'' provides States with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working.

We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient.

Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work--even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a Bachelor's degree. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree.

The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's ``Parents as Scholars'', PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference.

Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare.

Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act'' requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first 2 years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of study time, employment or work experience for at least 24 hours per week--the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal.

During the second 2 years--for those enrolled in a four year program--the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination activities, including study time work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academic institution.

The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and, importantly, keep them off of welfare.

The experience of several ``Parents as Scholar'' graduates were captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.''

Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self- sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible.''

These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. Giving States the option use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability

to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently and isn't that our ultimate goal?

I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the federal program for too long.

I rise today to reintroduce five different bills important to my State of Maine that were included in the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last year. Unfortunately, that larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 108th Congress, but I am pleased that the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently stated that WRDA is on the committee's agenda for consideration soon. My hope is that all five bills will once again be included in the WRDA legislation in the 109th Congress.

All of my bills are non-controversial, and, importantly, are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers.

The first bill, S. 462, pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, Maine. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel, FNC, would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel.

My second bill, S. 463, concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, Maine. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.

My third bill, S. 464, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, Maine. The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area.

My fourth bill, S. 465, will carry out a project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, Maine, attributable to the Saco River navigation project. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests.

My fifth bill, S. 466, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midcoast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways.

The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the City and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience.

Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers.

The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is $3.8 million a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over If $2.5 million a year in the state.

I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and businesspeople with the vision and commitment we need to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

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.

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. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2005,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending that can occur when the Government neglects to pay attention to where it makes its purchases.

Last year, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, now the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explored the Government's use of purchase cards and we learned about ways to save an estimated $300 million annually through better management of purchase cards. Purchase cards are, in essence, credit cards that agencies give to its employees for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the Federal Government. In fact, under Federal acquisition law, purchase cards are the Government's preferred method for making what are known as ``micropurchases''--that is items costing $2,500 or less. Although Government employees spend billions of dollars with purchase cards each year, Federal agencies do very little to analyze the items obtained with purchase cards in an attempt to get a better price for the Government.

The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at all times, it is never more so than today when the Government is running large budget deficits. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a special role to play in reducing wasteful spending, and I have made this role a priority at the Committee. This legislation is one aspect of our committee's efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Government spending.

Purchase cards came into Federal Government-wide use in 1989. They allow Government employees to easily and efficiently purchase routine items such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. While they are generally used for small purchases, they accounted for more than $16 billion in Federal spending in 2003. In 1994, they accounted for only $1 billion.

This increase in use is good news because it means that more Government spending is being executed in an expeditious manner that reduces red tape and saves on administrative costs. At the same time, the use of purchase cards should enable us to conduct comprehensive analysis of how this $16 billion is spent and where. This information could be analyzed and used to further reduce the Federal Government's costs. At present, however, this is not being done.

Last year, Senator Feingold, Representative Schakowsky and I released a report by the Government Accountability Office identifying missed opportunities for savings. According to that report the missed savings were due to both a lack of training and a lack of management attention and oversight. According to GAO, too many purchase cardholders failed to obtain readily available discounts on purchase cards buys. Even where the Government and the vendor had negotiated a discounted price for items through the General Services Administration schedules, Federal employees with purchase cards failed to take advantage of the discounted prices and their managers were completely unaware of those lost

opportunities to save. One example of a repeated lost opportunity to save was the Department of the Interior's purchases of printer toner cartridges. One GSA schedule vendor offered the toner for only $24.99. Yet, of the Department's 791 toner cartridge purchases, only two were at or below that price. Some cartridges were purchased for $34.99, which is about 40 percent higher than the GSA schedule price.

In addition to failing to use available schedule prices, GAO found that agencies failed to negotiate lower prices with vendors with whom they frequently used purchase cards. In the private sector, most companies that use the same vendor for a lot of purchases would negotiate some sort of volume discount. But before they would attempt to negotiate savings the company would first need to understand its spending patterns. Because Federal agencies lack a comprehensive understanding of where its employees are using Government purchase cards, Federal agencies are unable to replicate this practice.

At my request, GAO analyzed purchase card use at the six Federal agencies that account for 85 percent of Government purchase card usage. As a result of that analysis, GAO estimated that $300 million per year could be saved if agencies improved their purchase card buying practices.

Under our legislation, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, would direct agencies to better train their cardholders and more effectively analyze their spending data. It would also direct the GSA to increase its efforts to improve its efforts to secure discounts with vendors and provide agencies with more guidance to reduce wasteful spending.

The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars wisely. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.