[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12668-S12676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 320 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

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


                           Amendment No. 2518

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

[[Page S12669]]

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2519

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

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

[[Page S12670]]

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

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


                    Amendment No. 2485, As Modified

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

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

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

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

[[Page S12671]]

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

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

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

[[Page S12672]]

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


                Amendment No. 1550, As Further Modified

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S12673]]

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

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

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

[[Page S12674]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S12675]]

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


                           Amendment No. 2519

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

[[Page S12676]]

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

                          ____________________