Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to consideration of H.R. 1495.

Mr. President, I think we have just seen an extraordinary chapter of how two leaders can come together and structure a procedure by which this Senate can go forward and achieve its objectives. I am totally supportive of the procedure enunciated by our two distinguished leaders because I strongly support the need for getting this appropriations legislation through and on to the President's desk so that we can fund adequately our Armed Forces, particularly those engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The leadership further decided that those Senators who wish to address the conferees could do so by adding amendments to this bill. My understanding is that there are two amendments that have been filed on the other side of the aisle: one by Mr. Feingold and another by Mr. Levin. And in consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, I now file an amendment on this side of the aisle, although I am hopeful my amendment would not be viewed purely as a Republican amendment but that it could be a vehicle by which we can reach some level, hopefully a significant level, of bipartisan consensus on the several principles I have enunciated in this amendment.

Throughout the course of this debate on Iraq, since the President's announcement of a new strategy on January 10 of this year, there have been groups of Republicans and Democrats that have voiced our concerns about the strategies being employed in Iraq, and we continue to do so by virtue of this process now decided upon by the leadership whereby amendments to this bill can be brought up, which amendments reflect the sentiments of those who are sponsoring them.

At the present time, my amendment is sponsored by my principal cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, although I have been in consultation with a number of other Senators on this side of the aisle, as well as Senators on the other side of the aisle.

Given the brevity of the time today, since Senators have returned from their constituencies largely this morning, and the fact that we have been trying to work out the procedure just adopted by the Senate by the two leaders, it has not been possible for me to isolate a fixed set of cosponsors. Nevertheless, I do know of a number, certainly on this side, and I am hopeful on the other side, and now that this amendment is filed tonight, it is my expectation and hope that Senators will be adding their names as cosponsors. I urge that be done at the earliest opportunity because, as I understand it, and the leadership will subsequently address, I think, the Senate tonight respecting the legislative program tomorrow as to when my amendment, with such cosponsors that are able to add their names, and the two amendments pending from the other side--and I believe a fourth that is to be brought up by our distinguished Republican leader sometime this evening--will be debated, voted upon, and subject to a cloture motion.

Let me now turn to addressing the specifics of this amendment at this time. This amendment, in its preamble, has the following: We entitle it the ``President's Strategy In Iraq.'' Section 1. Findings regarding progress in Iraq, the establishment of benchmarks to measure that progress, and reports to the Congress.

The recitation in the first section of this amendment is a series of statements factually describing the situation as we, the sponsors of this amendment, feel have taken place, largely since January 10 of this year. Foremost among those obligations is, of course, our recognition of the enormity of the sacrifice of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families and others who have taken an active role in carrying out our strategies in Iraq, not just since January 10 of this year but prior thereto, in the regrettably long period of time that this conflict in Iraq has persisted.

Following those statements, we then go to section 2, which is entitled, ``Conditioning of Future United States Strategy in Iraq on the Iraqi Government's Record of Performance on its Benchmarks.''

In General. The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter,

shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting

benchmarks as told to Members of Congress by the President,

the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and reflected in the

Iraqi Government's commitments to the United States, and to

the international community, including . . .

For example, benchmarks--and I shall read but several. First and foremost:

Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then

completing the Constitutional review;

Enacting and implementing legislation on de-baathification;

Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the

equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the

people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of

recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to

ensure that the energy resources of

Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other

Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form

semi-autonomous regions;

Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an

Independent High Electoral Commission; provincial elections

law; provincial council authorities; and a date for

provincial elections.

I shall not read further from this document. It will be a matter of record. But these benchmarks were ones put forth by the Iraqi Government, in large measure. What we are doing now is requiring the following:

The President shall submit reports to the Congress on how

the sovereign government of Iraq is, or is not, achieving

progress towards accomplishing the aforementioned benchmarks,

and shall advise the Congress on how that assessment

requires, or does not require, changes to the strategy

announced on January 10, 2007.

Reports Required.

(1) The President shall submit an initial report, in

classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not

later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the

specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his

judgment, whether satisfactory progress towards meeting these

benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(2) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of

State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-

National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq,

and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the

report and submit the report to Congress.

(3) If the President's assessment of any of the specific

benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President

shall include in that report a description of such revisions

to the political, economic, regional, and military components

of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10,

2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report,

the advisability of implementing such aspects of the

bipartisan Iraq Study Group, as he deems appropriate.

And, as is well documented in the Senate, and well-respected, if I may say, by the Senate--the work of the Iraq Study Group.

(4) The President shall submit a second report to the

Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the

same procedures and criteria outlined above.

(5) The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

is hereby waived from the date of the enactment of this Act

through the period ending September 15, 2007.

That is put in there for the reason that we believe these reports by the President will supplant whatever reports had been required by that act. The force and effect of the requirement for those reports will pick up and continue after September of this year.

(c) Testimony before Congress.

(1) Prior to the submission of the President's second

report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon

by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the

United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-

National Forces Iraq--

That is General Petraeus--

will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions

before the relevant committees of the Congress.

I will now refer to the section titled ``Limitations on Availability of Funds'' in this appropriations bill.

Limitation. No funds appropriated or otherwise made

available for the ``Economic Support Fund'' and available for

Iraq may be obligated or expended unless and until the

President of the United States certifies in the report

outlined in subsection (2)(b)(1) above and makes a further

certification in the report outlined in subsection (2)(b)(4)

above that Iraq is making progress in each of the benchmarks

set forth in section 2 above.

To give the President a certain amount of flexibility--and this is the provision I am particularly indebted to our distinguished colleague, Ms. Collins of Maine, who has worked with me on it, as well as Senator Coleman and others who have been working with me--we provide the following:

The President may waive the requirements of this section if

he submits to Congress a written certification setting forth

the detailed justification for the waiver, which shall

include a detailed report describing the actions being taken

by the United States to bring the Iraqi government into

compliance with the benchmarks set forth in section 2 above.

The certification shall be submitted in unclassified form,

but may include a classified annex.

We proceed to a section entitled ``Redeployment of U.S. Forces from Iraq.'' There has been considerable publicity attached to certain actions having been taken by the Council of Representatives in Iraq-- that is their basic name for their parliament--and to clarify that we have put in the following requirement:

The President of the United States, in respecting the

sovereign rights of the nation of Iraq, shall direct the

orderly redeployment of elements of U.S. forces from Iraq, if

the components of the Iraqi government, acting in strict

accordance with their respective powers given by the Iraqi

Constitution, reach a consensus as recited in a resolution,

directing a redeployment of U.S. forces.

Now, proceeding to another section, ``Independent Assessments.''

Assessment by the Comptroller General.

Not later than September 1, 2007, the Comptroller general

of the United States shall submit to Congress an independent

report setting forth--

(A) the status of the achievement of the benchmarks

specified in section 2 above; and

(B) the Comptroller General's assessment whether or not

each such benchmark has [or has not] been met.

(b) Assessment of the capabilities of Iraq Security forces.

This is a section which I worked on, now, for over 2 months, laying a foundation, with consultations with the White House senior staff, the Secretary of Defense, and indeed a private organization here, a well- respected organization, independent of any affiliation with the Government, to participate in performing this report, as well as a very senior and highly respected retired military officer who, hopefully, will be designated to head up this report.

I believed it was imperative that the Congress needed to have an independent report, and by ``independent,'' I mean a report performed by a private sector entity with the advice and participation of at least one senior retired military officer, and maybe others, so that we can have a report to put side by side with the periodic evaluations of the Department of Defense as to the military--professional ability, capability, training, and equipment of the Iraqi security forces. That is essential. So that is the essence of this provision which I now read.

(1) In General.--There is hereby authorized to be

appropriated for the Department of Defense, $750,000, that

the Department, in turn, will commission an independent

private sector entity which operates as a 501(c)(3) with

recognized credentials and expertise in militarily affairs,

to prepare an independent report assessing the following:

(A) The readiness of the Iraqi security forces--ISF

[referred to] to assume responsibility for maintaining the

territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international

terrorists a safe haven, and bringing greater security to

Iraq's 18 provinces in the next 12-18 months, and bringing an

end to sectarian violence to achieve national reconciliation.

(B) The training, equipping, command, control and

intelligence capabilities and logistics capacity of the ISF

[Iraqi Security Forces].

(C) The likelihood that given the ISF's record of

preparedness to date, following years of training and

equipping by U.S. forces, the continued supports of U.S.

troops will contribute to the readiness of the ISF to fulfill

the missions outlined in subparagraph (A).

(2) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the enactment of

this Act, the designated private sector entity shall provide

an unclassified report, with a classified annex, containing

its findings, to the House and Senate Committees on Armed

Services, Appropriations, Foreign Relations/International

Relations, and Intelligence.

Having worked on this report some 2 months now, I submitted it to colleagues in the House of Representatives. I am pleased to say that those colleagues saw fit to include that basic language on reporting and establishing this independent entity and individuals to study the Iraqi security forces. This provision which I have just read was contained in the House appropriations bill. It is my hope and expectation that it will be included by this Senate, the appropriators, in their bill such that it will emerge as part of the final conference report of the House and the Senate.

I once again thank many individuals who have worked with me and their respective staffs, who worked beginning last week on the final draft. They worked over the weekend, worked on Monday, worked today to create this document. I am hopeful a good number of our colleagues will see fit to cosponsor this document, which document and amendment will be discussed tomorrow in such brief period as outlined by the leadership. They will define it tonight, and then it will be voted upon.

I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if I may engage our respected leaders in a colloquy regarding the passage last night of the House supplemental. I am speaking for, I think, a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, who have some thoughts with regard to how we proceed on the funding issue. I personally--speaking for myself--believe we should have no bifurcation of the funding and that it should all be acted upon at one time. I am very anxious that the tentative schedule of the leadership is before Memorial Day. That is most important.

I hope some of us could address the Senate and the leadership regarding the subject of benchmarks. I read with great interest that the President is openminded on the question of benchmarks. I believe it is important that, in September, General Petraeus is going to give us a report, together with the U.S. Ambassador, and presumably the Secretaries of State and Defense will join in that very important report to the Congress--indeed, to the whole country--with regard to the status of things in Iraq in September. I do believe there is such a rapidly unfolding situation over there--we don't know from day to day how to anticipate certain things. Earlier this morning, General Mixon reported that he didn't have sufficient forces, U.S. forces and presumably Iraqi forces, to perform his mission in Diyala Province.

I am hopeful, speaking for myself, that we can put in some language tied to benchmarks by which the President, before we go out on the August recess, would report to the Nation and to the Congress on his judgment as to whether there is progress on the benchmarks and whether he feels that in the July timeframe some change in strategy must be brought about in order to achieve the goals of the original strategy laid down on January 10 of this year.

My language would not have any obstruction to the flow of funds, but it would simply keep the Nation and the Congress fully informed of his judgment, together with his senior advisers, at that critical time before we go out on the August recess. I believe we have a responsibility, first and foremost, to the men and women in the Armed Forces, their families, and to the country for the Congress to watch this situation very closely and not defer until the September timeframe the concentrated judgment that would

be brought to bear on the receiving of the report in September.

To what extent can you advise us as to the process that might be followed in order to expeditiously get to the conference but at the same time either the conferees be informed of the views of others or we have some mechanism by which to address the issue?

I thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to this measure before the Senate, and I will cast my vote against it.

This measure places undue constraints on the utilization of our brave military, together with our allies working with us and, indeed, constraints on the utilization of the Iraqi military, which likewise has followed through with a brave performance with our forces.

This is a very complex situation on the battlefield, and in the government, with respect to Iraq. Last fall, with other Senators, I returned from my eighth visit to Iraq and I said the complexity of the battlefield has forced the sovereign nation of Iraq to ``drift sideways.'' Regrettably, it continues, in my judgment, to drift. Our forces, and indeed our allies in that country, have fought bravely and are following through on their mission to try and bring about a greater degree of security in Baghdad.

While I expressed some concerns about the ``surge'' operation when it was announced on January 10, it is an ongoing operation now. We are losing life and limb daily, and we must allow our troops to be properly funded to carry out their missions.

Now, we heard yesterday from General Petraeus, and in my judgment, he gave a very factual, pragmatic, professional military opinion, showing objectivity. He is to be commended and our forces bravely fighting under his command should likewise be commended as well.

I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues a comment made by our distinguished Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, during his trip. He said, ``our commitment to Iraq is long-term, but it is not a commitment to have our young men and women patrolling Iraqi streets open-endedly.'' In no way does he question the long-term need for our Nation to show its resolve and commitment to give security to this region of the world. But he clearly says it is not open-ended.

We cannot ask our forces, nor the Iraqi forces, to risk life and limb during their missions, unless the Iraqi legislature and the government of Iraq begins to give an equal or greater measure of commitment to perform their responsibility to achieve political solutions. A military solution, we all acknowledge, will not alone achieve a strong, survivable, sovereign Iraq. A political solution and a framework of legal reconciliation is essential.

And we must, at this point in time, bring to light a serious potential problem, which I have been told, that the Iraqi legislature might possibly take a 2-month recess during July and August. That is not acceptable. An action of that consequence would severely hinder those of us, myself and others, who are looking at the greater issue beyond Iraq as to the impact on this region if the combined efforts of our country and other nations fail.

We are seeing some progress as it relates to the international group of nations coming together, the border nations are scheduled to meet a second time. It is through only political reconciliation measures and bold leadership by the Prime Minister and each and every Member of the Iraqi Legislature, that this conflict can bring forth a stable, sovereign government, that is fully functioning, and is capable of providing for its own security. In so doing, Iraq will then be able to play an integral role in the security of this region.

Further, we must again, and again, signal to Prime Minister Maliki and to each of the Members of the Iraqi Legislature that they must do their job in a timely manner because every day Iraqi and American lives are being lost in their heroic effort to provide the security for the Iraqi government to function.

Finally, while I will vote against this report, I pledge to work with other Senators on how to rewrite the next bill, following the veto process, for these funds are essential for our troops and as we draft the next bill, we must we must assure the world of our resolve and commitment to the region.

I yield the floor so that others may speak.

Mr. President, in a few short weeks, America will commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World. It is an event that I, along with many of my fellow Virginians and Americans, have looked upon with great anticipation.

Jamestown's anniversaries have always been major national patriotic events, and this year will be no different. Visitors and dignitaries from all over the world will converge on the site, where, in 1607, CAP John Smith and his motley crew of Englishmen first stepped ashore to begin life in the New World. Commemorating the Jamestown anniversary allows Americans to not only remember the bravery of Captain Smith's crew and the founding of America but also to celebrate the democratic ideals and institutions that trace their roots to that remarkable beginning. The rule of law, the entrepreneurial spirit, representative government, and cultural diversity all originated at Jamestown and all continue to have profound effects on America today.

To recognize the impact of Jamestown and to signal Congress's support for the 400th anniversary of its founding, I introduce today this resolution. It marks the importance of Jamestown to our Nation's history and recognizes its 400th anniversary as a seminal event for the American people. Furthermore, the resolution recognizes the critical role Native Americans played in the colony's survival, notes the democratic ideals first instilled at Jamestown, and reflects on the unique confluence of cultures that made Jamestown strong and successful. With this resolution, Congress has a chance to officially record for history its support for the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise tonight to respond to those who have questioned the legislative history and intent of section 1076 of the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act, a provision dealing with the use of the Armed Forces and National Guard in major public emergencies.

This provision was the subject of a hearing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I would like to outline that this provision was drafted jointly by the Senate Armed Services Committee in a bipartisan and transparent fashion, was approved unaninmously by the committee, and was printed on May 9, 2006 as part of the Senate report on this bill.

The provision was fully available in the public domain for review and debate for over 5 months prior to its final passage in the House and Senate, and approval by the President.

During the brief period today that I have had the opportunity to again review this legislation, I did not uncover any material that suggests there were any serious misgivings regarding this provision by Federal, State, or local officials.

I believe the committee's record speaks for itself. Attached below is an excerpt as put forth in the final conference report:

Report 109-702--Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 5122

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Excerpt)

use of the armed forces in major public emergencies (sec. 1076)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1042) that

would amend chapter 15 of title 10, United States Code, the

so-called `Insurrection Act,' to clarify and update the

statute, and to make corresponding changes toother provisions

of law. Chapter 15 contains a collection of statutes dating

to the 18th and 19th centuries that authorizes the use of the

armed forces to put down insurrections, enforce Federal

authority, and suppress conspiracies that interfere with the

enforcement of Federal or State law.

The provision would amend section 333 of title 10, United

States Code, to authorize the President, in any situation in

which he determined that, as a result of a natural disaster,

terrorist attack or incident, epidemic or other serious

public health emergency, or other condition, domestic

violence occurred to such an extent that the constituted

authorities of the State are incapable of maintaining public

order, and the violence obstructed the execution of the laws

of the United States of impeded the course of justice

thereunder, to use the armed forces, including the National

Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce

the laws of the United States until the State authorities are

again capable of maintaining order. The President is to

notify Congress of his determination to exercise this

authority as soon as possible and every 15 days thereafter as

long as the authority is exercised.

The provision would also amend chapter 152 of title 10,

United States Code, to authorize the President, in any

situation in which he determines to exercise the authority

set out above, to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide

supplies, services, and equipment necessary for the immediate

preservation of life and property. Such supplies, services,

and equipment may be provided: (1) only to the extent that

the constituted authorities of the State are unable to

provide them; (2) only until other departments and agencies

of the United States charged with such responsibilities are

able to provide them; and (3) only to the extent that their

provision will not interfere with preparedness or ongoing

operations. This authority is not subject to the provisions

of section 403  of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief

and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b ).

The provision would further include a conforming amendment

to section 12304  of

title 10, United Stated Code, to remove a restriction on the

use of the Presidential Selected Reserve call up authority in

chapter 15 or natural disaster situations. The House bill

contained no similar provision. The House recedes with an

amendment that would modify the conforming amendment to

section 12304 ) to provide that the Presidential Selected

Reserve call up authority could be used in situations arising

under chapter 15 and section 12406 of title 10, United States

Code, as well as in situations set out in subsection (b) of

section 12304.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal employees working alongside them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation.

As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important.

At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these countries is being done by the military and the Department of State (DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum.

Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone Tax Credit.

This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. This benefit for the military was established in 1913.

Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees as I have been for our military personnel.

Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty to their country is first and foremost.

During my service as Secretary of the Navy--during which I was privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the uniformed Navy--I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important for developing this teamwork.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and we need to make it easier for our Federal employees to participate.

Last year, I offered additional legislation that became law under an emergency supplemental bill to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, provided the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD employees serving in those countries.

At that time, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies did not have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as those they work beside.

In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk.

Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to undertake.

Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal employees working alongside them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation.

As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important.

At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these countries is being done by the military and the Department of State (DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum.

Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone Tax Credit.

This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. This benefit for the military was established in 1913.

Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees as I have been for our military personnel.

Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty to their country is first and foremost.

During my service as Secretary of the Navy--during which I was privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the uniformed Navy--I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important for developing this teamwork.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and we need to make it easier for our Federal employees to participate.

Last year, I offered additional legislation that became law under an emergency supplemental bill to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, provided the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD employees serving in those countries.

At that time, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies did not have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as those they work beside.

In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk.

Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to undertake.

Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, in recognition of the 100th birthday of an exceptional American, Oliver White Hill. I am proud to say that this champion of civil rights is a fellow Virginian whom I have come to know personally over these many years. It is my privilege today to join Senator Webb in honor of this great man.

After earning his law degree from Howard University School of Law where, I might add, he finished as the salutatorian to none other than future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall--Oliver White Hill began his law practice in Roanoke, VA, moving soon thereafter to Richmond to serve the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, as the leader of its legal team in our Commonwealth. In his work with the NAACP from 1940 to 1961, Mr. Hill contributed tremendously to the progression of civil rights in our country, particularly in his role as a principal attorney on the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Working diligently for the NAACP, Mr. Hill was legal counsel for many historic cases regarding equal opportunity in education, employment, housing, transportation, and justice.

As a person who has spent many years in public service, I have a special appreciation for the dignity with which Mr. Hill answered the call to duty throughout his career, first as a veteran of World War II, as the first African American elected to the Richmond City Council since the Reconstruction era, and later as a Federal appointee to the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It is my honor today to stand before the Senate in appreciation for the efforts of Mr. Hill on behalf of his country and his Commonwealth. Certainly, the legacy of his strong career in support of equal rights will continue to be felt through the determination of the many Americans mentored or inspired by Oliver White Hill, and I join with Senator Webb in gratitude for his dedication and longevity.

Mr. President, I am joined on the floor by my distinguished colleague, Senator Webb. We wish to address the Senate, indeed speak with all America, for we Virginians have

suffered today one of the most grievous incidents ever to occur in our State or, indeed, in America.

I speak to the tragic loss of life and tragic injury of so many students and faculty at the distinguished and venerable institution of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA.

All America joins to mourn these young people whose lives of promise have been cut so short, and those injured as they, hopefully and prayerfully, recover from their wounds. I must say, I have been privileged to serve in this institution for many years. I served in many other posts of public service in my lifetime. This tragedy, this tragedy is an incomprehensible situation, an incomprehensible, senseless act of violence.

In time, be it days or weeks, Americans will learn more about the circumstances of today in Blacksburg, VA. For now, however, and forever after, our hearts and our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the other students and faculty at Virginia Tech and, indeed, their families.

Virginians are proud of this historic university. I have known it all my lifetime and how it has served our State and Nation for nearly a century and a half as an exemplary institution of learning, one that has contributed many fine young men and women to the Armed Forces of our United States.

For the moment, I simply close by saying that the historic and proud tradition of Virginia Tech will carry on. Our State embraces them as does all America. We will work with them to make sure they can carry on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We do recognize, both of us, our gratitude to the bipartisan leadership of this institution in opening today's session with a prayer and a moment of silence to honor the victims; not only the victims involved but those at this great university and throughout the State.

I also thank our Governor. Our Governor is en route quickly returning from a trip to Japan. He has been in contact and received a call from the President of the United States, George Bush. We have talked with his chief of staff throughout the day and have waited until this time, until such facts have been gathered, the few that are known about this tragedy, before addressing the Senate.

I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and dear friend from Maine. I thank other colleagues who have spoken to me and to my distinguished colleague, Senator Webb. We thank the Senate for its compassion in this matter. Each Senator feels deeply that it could have happened, I suppose, this sort of tragic situation, in any State in the Union. So we are all sharing this tragic moment in the life of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am joined here with my colleague, Senator Webb, and the two of us have put forward a resolution of the Senate, S. Res. 149. We are joined in the cosponsorship by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, the minority leader, Senator McConnell, and all other Members of the Senate.

Our resolution, jointly prepared by Senator Webb and myself, reads as follows:

Expressing the condolences of the Senate on the tragic

events at Virginia Tech University.

Resolved, that the Senate

(1) offers its heartfelt condolences to the victims and

their families, and to students, faculty, administration and

staff and their families who have been deeply affected by the

tragic events that occurred today at Virginia Tech in

Blacksburg, Virginia;

(2) expresses its hope that today's losses will lead to a

shared national commitment to take steps that will help our

communities prevent such tragedies from occurring in the

future; and

(3) recognizes that Virginia Tech has served as an

exemplary institution of teaching, learning, and research for

well over a century; and that the University's historic and

proud traditions will carry on.

I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We have worked as partners on this resolution throughout the day. It has been a most unusual day for the two of us, for our Governor, for our State, and all its people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 149, which was submitted earlier today.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 697, which is filed at the desk.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

Amendment No. 697, as Modified

Mr. President, the Senate, a few minutes ago, acted on an amendment, the Warner-Byrd amendment. It is a rather unique one. I first thank my distinguished colleague and mentor in many ways, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. We have collaborated together many times on pieces of legislation.

But I approached him, and he concurred in my observations, that this was badly needed by the Congress, by the country, and indeed by the President and his staff, as well as the Department of Defense.

Our amendment calls for the appropriation of a sum of money to enable a private sector entity to make an independent--independent of all entities, the Pentagon and otherwise, in the Federal Government-- assessment of the status of the Iraqi security forces, most specifically the army, the national guard, and other elements which are fighting alongside the coalition forces, and primarily the U.S. forces now in the operations in Baghdad.

I have followed this issue for a number of years, and I have referred to the report to the Congress of May 2006, roughly a year ago. In that report, they talk about the:

Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) continue to grow in strength

and capability as indicated by:

progress in the training and equipping of ISF personnel;

assessed capabilities of operational units; and

progress in assuming responsibility for security of areas

within Iraq.

In another part, on page 46:

With the generation of Iraqi Army battalions now more than

89 percent complete, the focus of the Army's train-and-equip

effort has shifted towards building combat support and combat

service support forces.

Now, this is a report, as I say, of a year ago. Compare that to the report Congress received this month, March of 2007, and the following paragraph, observation, from page 25:

By the end of 2006, the United States and its Coalition

partners met their force generation targets, while continuing

their efforts to expand the size and capability of the ISF--

``ISF'' being Iraqi Security Forces--

to meet emergent requirements. As of February 19, 2007,

approximately 328,700 forces (not including replenishments)

have been trained. The actual number of present-for-duty

soldiers is about one-half to two-thirds of the total due to

scheduled leave, absence without leave--

That is referred to by those of us who served as ``AWOL''--

and attrition.

So it is not nearly, in 2007, as encouraging as the report in 2006. I felt, together with Senator Byrd and a group of cosponsors on this amendment, it was imperative we get an independent analysis of some of the reports of the Department of Defense and others to determine what is the viability of this force.

Every plan we lay down and discuss here on the floor regarding Iraq-- the amendment yesterday adopted narrowly by Senator Reid, calling on certain troop deployments and dates; the President's program of January 20 of this year, in which he revised strategy and initiated what we commonly refer to as the surge operation in Baghdad today--every single plan, concept for the future of Iraq is dependent upon the military proficiency, the viability, the capability of the Iraqi security forces. I felt very strongly that we had to go and get a second opinion--a phrase often used in medicine, but it is just as important here in diplomacy. It is just as important in military analysis. Let us get a second independent opinion about these forces.

Drawing on my own modest military career but a lifetime of experience in working with our military and having served in the Pentagon for over 5 years as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I have had some experience with training of forces. Our great country, since World War II, took recruits, brought them into recruit training, and in 6 to 7 months they were trained, capable individuals. They were then assigned to other units to have additional training, but they were often ready. Today, those same recruits in this generation of forces that we have serving on active duty in the Army and particularly the National Guard, they are trained in a period of 6 to 8 to 9

months, and then they go into combat situations. We have been training these 325,000 people, most of them, for a period of 2\1/2\ years. We need to know at what point this heavy investment of American taxpayers' dollars, the work of the U.S. military to train these individuals, at what point are we able to say: This force is able to take on these operations and perform them because all our planning is dependent on that.

I find it most difficult to see how we have trained 325,000--that is over twice the number of U.S. forces in Iraq--we have trained them for these many years. Why are they not able to step up and take on the major operations now being performed by the U.S. forces? Our President has indicated we will continue to embed our forces with Iraqi units and continue to give them certain supplies and logistics and equipment. It seems to me the fighting, the brunt of the fighting ought to be borne by the Iraqi forces, and we, the United States, be it the Congress or the executive branch--but most importantly the people--are entitled to have an assessment of what we have created with the expenditure of these hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to train these forces.

Now, the concept is--and I will be working with the administration and hopefully this becomes law and work through the process of appropriations--this sum of money would go to a private, independent entity to engage individuals to make this report, and then the report comes back to the Congress of the United States.

I thank my colleagues who have supported me, particularly my distinguished, longtime friend and associate from West Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd. We have done our work to initiate this all- important study because every plan we have is dependent upon a better understanding and knowledge of what has or has not been created in terms of the Iraqi security forces.

I am pleased to yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, it seems to me we have to face the reality of fact. Now, this would be an independent report. Obviously, I think the Department of Defense would come back and provide some rebuttal or some additional information, so we would have to take all the viewpoints and put them together. But what I say to my distinguished colleague from Illinois is we are still relying solely upon these reports that come on an annual basis. I read through them, and I encourage others to do so. It is very difficult to glean from these reports that sound, basic fact: Are they trained? Are they equipped? Are they ready? Most importantly, I say to the Senator, do they have the commitment in their hearts to take orders and fight on behalf of the Iraqi people? That is what concerns me because of the large amount of AWOL, absentees, and all the other types of things that are reflected in this report.

Mr. President, I thank my long-term friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. We came to the Senate together some 29 years ago. I commend him for the leadership he has provided throughout his many years and, particularly, on this coming vote, which is most important--not just to the Senate but to the whole Congress and to the people of the United States and to the world. I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran.

Some many weeks ago, shortly after January 10, when the President announced his new strategy for a surge, I was among those few voices on this side that expressed concern about that initiative. I believed that this Nation had invested so heavily in Iraq, in life, in limb, and an extraordinary amount of money, much of that having been spent on the training of the Iraqi security forces, and that the time had come for those security forces to bear the brunt of the battle. Our group, having drawn up a resolution, endeavored to try to get it debated, but the record shows that opportunity, and the opportunity to vote on it, was not given. But that is history.

At this time, however, I believe the operations of our troops under the new strategy are well underway. We have many men and women of our Armed Forces in harm's way, and we must be very cautious as to the message we send at this time.

Mr. President, I say most respectfully that with this current draft we are trying to strike out the language that, if allowed to stand, would send a sound all over the world. It would be the bugle of retreat; it would be echoed and repeated from every minaret throughout Iraq: The coalition forces have decided to take the first step backward.

We cannot send that message at this time. I will be among those who will constantly challenge any aspect of the policies of this administration which I believe are not in the best interest. I have two amendments that, hopefully, will be considered in the context of the pending bill. One calls for an independent investigation--independent of the Department of Defense and all entities of the Federal Government--of the Iraqi security forces, principally the army and, to some extent, the police, to determine what the status is of those forces today.

What has been the result of the billions of dollars we have expended over 2\1/2\ years to train and equip them? Are they now, or in the immediate future, able to carry the burden of this fight to enable the people and the Government of Iraq to have greater security and eventually achieve the goals and the full reins of a democracy?

The other amendment I have calls for a table of benchmarks and a reporting sequence from our administration as to whether the Iraqis are or are not meeting those benchmarks because any option laid down is dependent on the capability of the Iraqi security forces. Early reports in the engagements thus far indicate that, in some measures, they have met the commitments they made to have sent battalions, to have engaged with such limited aggression that has been brought against them in the course of this surge and against the coalition forces. Nevertheless, it is the American forces that are primarily in the lead, primarily in the support role and carrying the greater burden of this battle.

So at this time I do not think it is wise to sound that bugle, that sound of retreat. Think of the consequences if that nation implodes and fractures and the Government and all of the gains that we have gotten thus far are lost. Think of the consequences on, for example, the potential for other energy sources to be developed in that region-- energy that is vital to the world, energy that must flow from that region through the Straits of Hormuz that could be jeopardized if there is a convulsion among the border states and the spreading of the anarchy that could simply flow from this most distressed land of uncertainty we call Iraq, this situation that is so fragile at this time.

So I urge my colleagues, with no disrespect to those who put this in the bill, to support the Cochran amendment.

Mr. President, while I have the floor, I simply ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk for an amendment filed, No. 698.

Mr. President, I respect the manager of the bill, and I thank her.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know there has been a diligent effort on both sides to get the Byrd-Warner amendment cleared. I am hoping to get the final clearance from Senator Stevens. I know where he is, and I have contacted him. If that could just be held in abeyance for a minute or two, in the meantime, may I modify one of the amendments that is filed at the desk?

I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 698.

Mr. President, I will advise the leadership as soon as I get a message. I thank the distinguished leaders.

Amendment No. 798 to Amendment No. 680

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my Virginia Senate colleague, Senator Webb, related to the No Child Left Behind Act. This legislation simply tries to hold certain schools harmless, for one year, from the sanction provisions under NCLB when such sanctions result solely because of bureaucratic problems with the implementation of the law.

I am pleased to note that Congressman Tom Davis, Congressman Jim Moran, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Congresswoman Davis, and Congressman Rick Boucher have joined Senator Webb and me in introducing the same bill in the House of Representatives.

While I firmly believe that the goals behind NCLB are solid, there have been some challenges with the regulatory implementation of this new law, particularly in Virginia. Most recently, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. Department of Education have reached an impasse with respect to how best to test students with limited English proficiency. While, at this moment, I do not cast blame for how we came to this impasse, the simple fact is that it could result in a number of schools in Virginia being sanctioned under the Federal law--not because our schools are underperforming, but rather as a consequence of bureaucracy. This is clearly not the intent of No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind was intended to put in place a strong accountability system by which the Federal Government would receive favorable results for the billions of Federal dollars it spends on education. The law was structured to ensure that all students are included in States' accountability systems, and was designed to reward those systems that achieve goals under the accountability system, and to sanction those that do not.

Regrettably, in my view, if legislation is not passed and signed into law that recognizes the unique situation faced in Virginia, and perhaps other States, then public schools in Virginia, and perhaps around the country, will be punished through no fault of their own.

Let me be more specific about what has occurred in my State. On June 28, 2006, the Virginia Department of Education received notice from the U.S. Department of Education that the assessment that Virginia had used for years to test certain limited English proficiency students would no longer meet Federal requirements. The 2006-2007 academic school year started shortly thereafter, and, at that time, no alternative assessment had been approved.

On December 11, 2006, representatives from the Virginia Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction met with the U.S. Department of Education officials to discuss a one-year extension, by which Virginia would be permitted to use the same assessment it had used in prior years for testing LEP students. On January 4, 2007, the entire Virginia Congressional delegation sent a letter to Secretary Spellings supporting Virginia's request for a one- year extension for using an alternative assessment for testing LEP students.

On January 29, 2007, Secretary Spellings wrote back to me denying Virginia's request. On February 8, 2007, Deputy Secretary Ray Simon wrote to Virginia clarifying that, while the previous test may not be used, another assessment is expected to obtain approval.

Well, today is March 21, 2007. To date, Virginia still does not have an approved alternative assessment, and our State assessments are scheduled to be given in less than a month. With no appropriate test approved for students to take this April, how can Virginia schools be expected to meet federal standards? How can our State and schools develop, prepare for, and administer a new test when we are well past the middle of the school year? Common sense begs for a reasonable solution.

In the interim, several school divisions in Virginia have voted not to test the LEP students at all. In turn, the U.S. Department of Education has threatened to withhold from Virginia millions of Federal education dollars.

The legislation that we introduce today is designed to allow the parties involved to take a step back, develop an acceptable assessment, appropriately train and educate students on it, and allow the Virginia educational system to move forward without being sanctioned in a way that is inconsistent with the NCLB Act.

This legislation accomplishes these goals by holding schools, local education agencies, and States harmless for one year from the sanctions provisions of NCLB if they meet certain criteria. Specifically a state must: (1) have had one or more approved academic assessment plans for the 2005-2006 school year; (2) have had one or more of such plans subsequently held invalid by the Department of Education for the 2006- 2007 school year; and (3) have the Governor of the State certify, in writing, to the Secretary of Education that the State cannot effectively train its educators on a new or alternative assessment prior to the date the assessment is to be administered, and that the administration of a new or alternative assessment is not in the best interest of the public school system and the children the system serves.

This ``hold-harmless'' provision would only apply to those schools and school divisions that fail to meet the Federal standards solely because of these logistical problems.

Unlike other proposals that have recently been introduced with respect to No Child Left Behind, this measure would not exempt states from accountability, nor exempt States, school districts and schools from the requirements of NCLB. Our bill simply calls for the suspension of penalties for one year for those schools and districts that, through no fault of their own, are being set up for potential failure because of bureaucratic logistical problems. This will give the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Federal Government ample time to address the testing situation effectively for the 2007-2008 school year.

I would like to submit for the Record several letters expressing support for this legislation. The first letter is from Governor Kaine. The second letter is from Dr. Billy Cannady, the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Virginia; the third letter is from Dr. Mark Emblidge, President of the Virginia Board of Education; and the fourth letter is from the Virginia School Boards Association.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, may I say the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is exactly right. I am doing my very best, in consultation with Senator Nelson and other Members, to try to prepare this document. It is now in draft form. I would hope it could be concluded very shortly. So I plead guilty to the facts, and I apologize to the distinguished leader.