[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 106 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9560-S9575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
York, Mr. Schumer, will be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
The Senator from New York.
Amendment No. 1315
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment is already part
of the managers' package, so it does not have to be read.
In the interest of time, Mr. President, of the 10 minutes allotted to
me, I will yield back 4, take 3 for myself, and yield 3 to the senior
Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray be added
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. We have
all heard the reports, which bother us, tear at our hearts, that our
soldiers are going to have to stay a longer period of time because of
the fighting, the chaos, the problems in Iraq.
One of the quickest ways to get them home is that we set up an
indigenous police force. After all, our Army, the greatest Army in the
world, that has done such a great job in Iraq, has not really been
trained to be a police force to stop looting and to create civil order,
et cetera.
We are in the process of training Iraqis to take over this job, and I
am sure most Americans wish it could be done as quickly as possible.
This amendment is a reminder of that and an importuning of the
administration to do just that, by requiring that every 180 days there
be a report from the administration to Congress and the American people
that talks about the progress of setting up such a police force, the
cost of such a police force, and how it might affect the timetable and
speed up the timetable, more particularly, of our soldiers coming home.
We know we have to restore rule of law in Iraq. We know it should
best be done by an indigenous Iraqi police force. This amendment simply
says, let's get that done quickly, and let the administration report to
us on how that progress is going. It is important to the soldiers. It
is important to law and order in Iraq, and it is important to the
American people.
Nothing would make us all happier than to bring so many of our brave
soldiers home, and home quickly. This amendment is both a reminder and
an importuning addressed to that fact.
With that, I yield back the rest of my 3 minutes, and yield the
remaining time to the Senator from Washington, the cosponsor of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the
Schumer amendment to the Defense bill regarding the development of an
Iraqi police force. This is an urgent amendment--one of the most
important Iraq-related amendments we have considered on the defense
bill.
The Schumer amendment will focus the administration's attention on
the domestic security issue in Iraq that threatens American servicemen
and women, other Americans and foreigners now in Iraq, and the Iraqi
people.
One of the reasons we went to war in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi
people. The military campaign was named, ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.''
Again and again, from the President on down, we have been told that we
acted on behalf of the Iraqi people.
We all witnessed the scenes of jubilation at the fall of Saddam
Hussein's regime. Time and again, the administration has told us that
we have restored freedom to the Iraqi people.
We all hope this is ultimately true. But the truth today is very
different for women in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad.
Yeserday, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing reports of
rape, assault, and kidnapping of women and girls in Baghdad. The report
cites 25 credible allegations of rape and abduction since the fall of
Saddam Hussein. It is believed that the number of rapes and sexual
assaults in Baghdad is far higher. Women are discouraged from reporting
the crime and face social isolation and even ``honor killings'' by
other family members for being violently victimized.
Yesterday's New York Times contains a disturbing article about the
dangers confronting women in Baghdad. I ask unanimous consent to have
the article, ``Rape (And the Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad,''
printed in the Record.
[From the New York Times, July 16, 2003]
Rape (and Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad
(By Neela Banerjee)
Baghdad, Iraq, July 15.--In her loose black dress, gold
hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to
seat in her living
[[Page S9561]]
room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants
to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her
white teddy bear, will be her assistant.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven
weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and
has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She
cries, ``Let me go!'' ``I am afraid of the gangsters,''
Sanariya whispered in the twilight of her hallway. ``I feel
like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have
these nightmares.''
Since the end of the war and outbreak of anarchy on the
capital's streets, women here have grown increasingly afraid
of being abducted and raped. Rumors swirl, especially in a
country where rape is so rarely reported.
The breakdown of the Iraqi government after the war makes
any crime hard to quantify. But the incidence of rape and
abduction in particular seems to have increased, according to
discussions with physicians, law-enforcement officials and
families involved. A new report by Human Rights Watch based
on more than 70 interviews with law-enforcement officials,
victims and their families, medical personnel and members of
the coalition authority found 25 credible reports of
abduction and sexual violence since the war. Baghdadis
believe there are far more, and fear is limiting women's role
in the capital's economic, social and political life just as
Iraq tires to rise from the ashes, the report notes.
For most Iraqi victims of abduction and rape, getting
medical and police assistance is a humiliating process.
Deeply traditional notions of honor foster a sense of shame
so strong that many families offer no consolation or support
for victims, only blame. Sanariya's four brothers and parents
beat her daily, Fatin said, picking up a bamboo slat her
father uses. The city morgue gets corpses of women who were
murdered by their relatives in so-called honor killings after
they returned from an abduction--even, in some cases, when
they had not been raped, said Nidal Hussein, a morgue nurse.
``For a woman's family, all this is worse than death,''
said Dr. Khulud Younis, a gynecologist at the Alwiyah Women's
Hospital. ``They will face shame. If a woman has a sister,
her future will be gone. These women don't deserve to be
treated like this.''
It is not uncommon in Baghdad to see lines of cars outside
girls' schools. So fearful are parents that their daughters
will be taken away that they refuse to simply drop them off;
they or a relative will stay outside all day to make sure
nothing happens.
``Women and girls today in Baghdad are scared, and many are
not going to schools or jobs or looking for work,'' said
Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle east and
North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. ``If Iraqi women
are to participate in postwar society, their physical
security needs to be an urgent priority.''
Beyda Jafar Sadiq, 17, made the simple decision to go to
school on the morning of May 22 and never returned. Her
family has been looking for her ever since. They have
appealed to every international nongovernmental organization,
the Iraqi police and the American authorities. Her eldest
brother, Feras, 29, has crisscrossed the country, visiting
the morgue in Basra in the south, traveling to Amara and
Nasiriya on reports from acquaintances that they saw a girl
who looked like Beyda. ``I just want to find her,'' said
Beyda's mother, Zakiya Abd, her eyes swollen with grief.
``Whether she's alive or dead, I jut want to find her.
Some police in Baghdad concede that at this point, there is
little they can do to help. Their precinct houses were
thoroughly looted after the war. Despite promises from the
American authorities, Baghdad police still lack uniforms
weapons, communications and computer equipment and patrol
cars. ``We used to patrol all the time before the war,'' said
a senior officer at the Aadimiya precinct house. ``Now,
nothing, and the criminals realize their is no security on
the streets.''
The Human Rights Watch report alleges that sometimes when
women try to report a rape or families ask for help in
finding abducted women, they are turned away by Iraqi police
officers indifferent to the crimes. Some law-enforcement
officials insist abduction and rape have not increased, while
other officials and many medical personnel disagree. Bernard
R. Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner and now
an adviser to the Interior Ministry, told of recently firing
a precinct chief when he learned that the official had failed
to pursue a family's report of their missing 16-year-old
daughter. ``The biggest part of the issue is a culture that
precludes people from reporting,'' Mr. Kerik said. ``It
encourages people not to report.''
If an Iraqi woman wants to report a rape, she has to travel
a bureaucratic odyssey. She first has to go to the police for
documents that permit her to get a forensic test. That test
is performed only at he city morgue. The police take a
picture of the victim and stamp it and then stamp her arm.
That is so no one else goes in her place and says that she
was raped, that she lost her virginity,'' said Ms. Hussein,
the nurse. At the morgue, a committee of three male doctors
performs a gynecological examination on the victim to
determine if there was sexual abuse. The doctors are
available only from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. If a victim
arrives at any other time, she has to return the next day,
without washing away any physical evidence. Hospitals can
check victims only for broader trauma, like contusions and
broken bones.
Dr. Younis said she had seen more rape cases in the months
after the war than before. Yet even when women come to the
hospital with injuries that are consistent with rape, they
often insist something else happened. A 60-year-old woman
asserted that she had been hit by a car. The mother of a 6-
year-old girl begged the doctor to write a report saying that
her daughter's hymen had been ruptured because she fell on a
sharp object, a common lie families tell in the case of rape,
Dr. Younis said. Shame and fear compel the lies, Dr. Younis
said. ``A woman's father or brother, they feel it is their
duty to kill her'' if she has been raped, Dr. Younis said.
``It is the tribal law. They will get only six months
in prison and then they are out.''
Sanariya's family took her to a doctor three days after her
attack only because the bleeding had not stopped. She had
been sitting on the stairs at about 4 p.m. on May 22 when an
armed man dragged her into an abandoned building next door.
He shot at neighbors who tried to help the girl. He fled when
she began screaming during the assault.
Her mother refuses to let her outside now to play. Fatin
lied to her family and said an operation had been done to
restore Sanariya's hymen. But when her eldest brother, Ahmed,
found out otherwise, he wanted to kill Sanariya, Fatin said.
Out of earshot of her family, Sanariya said she feels no
better now, two months after the attack. ``I don't sleep at
night,'' she said in the hallway. ``I don't sleep.''
Mrs. MURRAY. The article describes a 9-year-old girl who wakes up
screaming, ``Let me go!'' This is a 9-year old girl whose life has been
forever changed by unimaginable violence. She says in the article, ``I
am afraid of the gangsters. I feel like they are killing me in my
nightmares. Every day, I have these nightmares.''
The story of this young girl--one of too many stories--ought to be
enough to focus the Congress and the administration on the urgency of
the domestic security situation in Iraq.
Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when women and girls
live in fear of abduction, rape, and murder?
Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when women are denied
participation in a new Iraqi government and economy because their
physical security is threatened every time they go out alone? Have we
restored freedom to the Iraqi people when 9-year-old girls are
victimized in the most horrifying way?
I want to share with the Senate a passage from the summary of the
Human Rights Watch report titled, ``Climate of Fear: Sexual Violence
and Abduction of Women and Girls in Baghdad.''
The summary reads:
Many of the problems in addressing sexual violence and
abduction against women and girls derive from the U.S.-led
coalition forces and civilian administration's failure to
provide public security in Baghdad. The public security
vacuum in Baghdad has heightened the vulnerability of women
and girls to sexual violence and abduction. The police force
is considerably smaller and more poorly managed when compared
to prior to the war. There is limited police street presence;
fewer resources available to police to investigate; little if
any record keeping; and many complaints are lost. Many
hospitals and the forensic institute are unable to operate
twenty-four hours a day as they did before the war, thus
preventing women from obtaining medical treatment and the
forensic examinations necessary to document sexual violence
in a timely manner.
The summary concludes with the following,
At the time of writing, plans for Iraq's reconstruction are
taking shape and rights of women and girls are at stake. It
is essential that all parties involved in these plans address
the state's inadequate protection of the rights of women and
girls. Those involved in the reconstruction process should
ensure that any existing and new trends toward treating women
and girls unequally before the law and discouraging women and
girls from reporting sexual violence, or punishing women and
girls for being the victims of sexual violence are countered.
We all know that our troops are faced with dangerous resistance
throughout Iraq. Just yesterday, our military leaders acknowledged that
we were facing a guerrilla warfare campaign of resistance. We know that
our troops are serving honorably in a tremendously difficult
environment. All of America is proud of our all volunteer force now
serving in Iraq and the region.
Despite the efforts of U.S. personnel, we have not adequately
addressed the domestic security crisis in Iraq. We cannot ignore that
women and young girls are being victimized with terrible consequences.
These crimes do not just affect individual women but the way women are
viewed and the role they will play in a new Iraq.
We cannot be silent about the abuse and violence that has come to
women
[[Page S9562]]
and girls in liberated Iraq. The Schumer amendment is our opportunity
today to tell the administration that we will not tolerate silence on
the treatment of women and girls in Iraq.
Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for bringing this
issue to the Senate for the reasons he stated in order to allow us to
know when our troops are going to be home. But, as I mentioned, I add
another dimension to why it is so important to put a police force and
have a trained police force in Iraq and on the ground there.
I would recommend to all of my colleagues that they take the time to
pick up the New York Times from yesterday and read the article I
referred to, which is a front page article: ``Rape (And Silence About
It) Haunts Baghdad.'' I will read from the beginning of that article:
In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-
flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room
like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to
be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her
white teddy bear, will be her assistant.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven
weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and
has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She
cries, ``Let me go!''
``I am afraid of the gangsters,'' [she says].
Every one of our colleagues should read the Human Rights Watch report
that has just been released titled ``Climate of Fear, Sexual Violence
and Abduction of Women and Girls in Baghdad.'' That report says that
many of the problems in addressing sexual violence and abduction that
are increasing in Iraq against women and girls derived from the United
States-led coalition force's and civilian administration's failure to
provide public security in Baghdad.
We went to war in Iraq. We have heard everyone say it was to restore
freedom. Let's make sure the young girls in Iraq have that security and
that freedom as well. They do not have it today. The amendment by the
Senator from New York puts us on track. We need to follow this in Iraq.
I commend the Senator for the amendment and I thank the manager of the
bill for accepting it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendments Nos. 1285 through 1298, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of
amendments. The first is an amendment in the amount of $2 million from
available funds for the Software Engineering Institute. The second is
$10 million from O&M funds for civil-military programs and the
innovative readiness training program. The third is $10 million for the
missile procurement program set-aside for assured access to space. The
next one is an amendment regarding a study of the mail delivery in the
Middle East. The next amendment is to conform the appropriation
provision relating to the use of RDT&E funds Defense-wide. The next
amendment is to make available from amounts available for research,
development, test, and evaluation $4 million for the Center for
Adaptive Optics. The next is to make available $1 million from amounts
available for RDT&E for completion of the Rhode Island Disaster
Initiative. The next is setting aside $8 million from amounts available
for the death gratuity payments for the fiscal year 2004 on behalf of
Senator Warner. The next is to make available from amounts available
for shipbuilding and conversion $20 million for the DDG-51
modernization planning program. The next is to provide for
appropriations for the Army Museum of the Southwest. The next is to
provide for the use of funds for privatization or transfer to another
Federal agency of the prison guard functions for Fort Leavenworth, KS.
The next provides for the purchase of Humvee tires. The next is to make
available from amounts available $2.5 million for the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial Commemoration Activities. The next is to prohibit the use
of funds to decommission a Naval or Marine Corps Reserve aviation
squadron pending a Comptroller General report.
All of these amendments have been cleared on both sides and have been
referred to my good friend from Arizona for his review.
I send them to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be
presented en bloc so they might be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
numbered 1285 through 1298 en bloc.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, while the clerk is examining those, I
have a new partnership in the Senate. My good friend from Nevada has
joined the club of the admirers of the Incredible Hulk.
Mr. REID. I liked the applause. That was nice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments, as
offered?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1285
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve, $2,000,000 for a Software Engineering
Institute)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II of this
Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army
Reserve'', up to $2,000,000 may be available for a Software
Engineering Institute Information Assurance Initiative.
AMENDMENT NO. 1286
(Purpose: To provide up to $10,000,000 of Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide funds for civil-military programs and the Innovative
Readiness Training (IRT) program)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to
$10,000,000 may be used for civil-military programs and the
Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program.
AMENDMENT NO. 1287
(Purpose: To increase by $10,000,000 the amount of Missile Procurement,
Air Force funds set aside for assured access to space)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title III
under the heading ``Missile Procurement, Air Force'', up to
$10,000,000 may be used for assured access to space in
addition to the amount available under such heading for the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.
amendment no. 1288
On page 120, insert the following on line 18:
``SEC.__STUDY REGARDING MAIL DELIVERY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a review of the delivery of mail to troops in
the Middle East and the study should:
(1) Determine delivery times, reliability, and losses for
mail and parcels to and from troops stations in the Middle
East.
(2) Identify and analyze mail and parcel delivery service
efficiency issues during Operations Desert Shield/Desert
Storm, comparted to such services which occurred during
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(3) Identify cost efficiencies and benefits of alternative
delivery systems or modifications to existing delivery
systems to improve the delivery times of mail and parcels.
(b) Report.--No later than 60 days after date of enactment
of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees
on the General Accounting Office's findings and
recommendations.
amendment no. 1289
(Purpose: To conform the appropriation provision relating to use of
RDT&E, Defense-Wide funds for an initial set of missile defense
capabilities to the corresponding authorization provision)
Strike section 8114, and insert the following:
Sec. 8114. Funds available to the Department of Defense
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for the Missile Defense Agency may
be used for the development and fielding of an initial set of
missile defense capabilities.
amendment no. 1290
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Air Force, $4,000,000 for the
Center for Adaptive Optics)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Air Force'', up to $4,000,000 may be available
for adaptive optics research.
amendment no. 1291
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, $1,000,000 for the completion
of the Rhode Island Disaster Initiative)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for the
completion of the Rhode Island Disaster Initiative.
[[Page S9563]]
amendment no. 1292
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for military
personnel, $8,000,000 for the costs during fiscal year 2004 of an
increase in the amount of the death gratuity payable with respect to
members of the Armed Forces from $6,000 to $12,000)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title I of this
Act for military personnel, up to $8,000,000 may be available
for the costs during fiscal year 2004 of an increase in the
amount of the death gratuity payable with respect to members
of the Armed Forces under section 1478 of title 10, United
States Code, from $6,000 to $12,000.
amendment no. 1293
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy, $20,000,000 for DDG-51 modernization planning)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II of this
Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'',
up to $20,000,000 may be available for DDG-51 modernization
planning.
amendment no. 1294
(Purpose: To provide appropriations for the Army Museum of the
Southwest)
At the appropriate place, insert:
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by Title II
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to
$4,000,000 may be used for the Army Museum of the Southwest
at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.
amendment no. 1295
(Purpose: To limit the use of funds for the privatization or transfer
to another Federal agency of the prison guard functions at the United
States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended for the
purpose of privatizing, or transferring to another department
or agency of the Federal Government, any prison guard
function or position at the United States Disciplinary
Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, until 30 days after the
date on which the Secretary of the Army submits to the
congressional defense committees a plan for the
implementation of the privatization or transfer of such
function or position.
amendment no. 1296
(Purpose: To provide funds for the purchase of HMMWV tires)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title II,
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps'', up to $6,000,000 may be used for the purchase of
HMMWV tires.
amendment no. 1297
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for National Guard
Personnel, Army, $2,500,000 for Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration Activities, and to make available from amounts available
for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, $1,500,000 for such
activities)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. (a) Availability of Certain Personnel Amounts.--
Of the amount appropriated by title I of this Act under the
heading ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', up to $2,500,000
may be available for Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration Activities.
(b) Availability of Certain Operation and Maintenance
Amounts.--Of the amount appropriated by title II of this Act
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National
Guard'', up to $1,500,000 may be available for Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial Commemoration Activities.
amendment no. 1298
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to decommission a Naval or
Marine Corps Reserve aviation squadron pending a Comptroller General
report on the requirements of the Navy and Marine Corps for tactical
aviation)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or
expended to decommission a Naval or Marine Corps Reserve
aviation squadron until the report required by subsection (b)
is submitted to the committee of Congress referred to in that
subsection.
(b) Report on Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Aviation
Requirements.--(1) Not later than twelve months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate a report on the requirements of
the Navy and the Marine Corps for tactical aviation,
including mission requirements, recapitalization
requirements, and the role of Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
assets in meeting such requirements.
(2) The report shall include the recommendations of the
Comptroller General on an appropriate force structure for the
active and reserve aviation units of the Navy and the Marine
Corps, and related personnel requirements, for the 10-year
period beginning on the date of the report.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1280 Withdrawn
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
Kennedy amendment No. 1280 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1299
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have another portion of the managers'
package. The amendment I send to the desk has been agreed to on both
sides. I ask for its immediate consideration and adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, and
Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 1299.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
amendment no. 1299
(Purpose: To limit the use of funds for converting to contractor
performance of Department of Defense activities and functions)
Beginning on page 46, strike line 24 and all that follows
through ``: Provided further, That the'' on page 47, line 23,
and insert the following:
Sec. 8014. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used for converting to contractor performance an
activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by
Department of Defense employees unless the conversion is
based on the results of a public-private competition process
that--
(1) applies the most efficient organization process except
to the performance of an activity or function involving 10 or
fewer employees (but prohibits any modification,
reorganization, division, or other change that is done for
the purpose of qualifying the activity or function for such
exception);
(2) provides no advantage to an offeror for a proposal to
save costs for the Department of Defense by offering
employer-sponsored health insurance benefits to workers to be
employed under contract for the performance of such activity
or function that are in any respect less beneficial to the
workers than the benefits provided for Federal employees
under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code; and
(3) requires a determination regarding whether, over all
performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers for
performance of the activity or function, the cost of
performance of the activity or function by a contractor would
be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that
equals or exceeds the lesser of (A) 10 percent of the most
efficient organization's personnel-related costs for
performance of that activity or function by Federal
employees, or (B) $10,000,000.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may, in the Secretary's
discretion, apply the tradeoff source selection public-
private competition process under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 to the performance of services related
to the design, installation, operation, or maintenance of
information technology (as defined in section 11101 of title
40, United States Code).
(c)(1) This section does not apply to a conversion of an
activity or function of the Department of Defense to
contractor performance if the Secretary of Defense (A)
determines in writing that compliance would have a
substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Department
of Defense to perform its national security missions, and (B)
publishes such determination in the Federal Register.
(2) This section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of
section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, do not apply
with respect to the performance of a commercial or industrial
type activity or function that--
(A) is on the procurement list established under section 2
of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 47); or
(B) is planned to be converted to performance by--
(i) a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or a
qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped (as
such terms are defined in section 5 of such Act (41 U.S.C.
48b); or
(ii) a commercial business at least 51 percent of which is
owned by an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450b(e))) or a Native Hawaiian Organization (as
defined in section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637(a)(15))).
[[Page S9564]]
(d) Nothing in this Act shall affect depot contracts or
contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469
and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment
to make sure that competitions between civilian Defense Department
employees and private companies are fair. The Department of Defense has
stacked the deck against Federal employees. The administration is
seeking to privatize much of the Federal workforce--to replace
dedicated Federal workers with cronyism and patronage.
The Kennedy amendment does not stop privatization. Yet it ensures
that competitions between civilian Defense Department employees and
private companies are fair. It puts Federal employees on an equal
footing with private contractors. It says that you cannot win
competitions for Federal jobs by denying health care benefits to your
employees. It makes sure privatization does not come at the expense of
health benefits for employees. Government contracts should not be won
by denying health benefits to hard-working Americans.
The Office of Management and Budget has issued a directive calling
for bounty hunters in Federal agencies to privatize 850,000 jobs over
the next 3 years. That is nearly half of the Federal workforce. To
speed up the process, the Bush administration changed the rules for
public/private competitions. The new rules stacked the deck against
employees, and made it harder for them to compete for their own jobs.
It created streamlined competitions that are not even based on cost
savings. The employees cannot even submit their own lowest bid. These
new rules are unfair and inefficient. They will likely end up costing
more to American taxpayers.
I stand up for an independent Federal workforce. We should not
replace good Government jobs with bad private sector jobs. A company
should not be able to win a bid because it saves money by denying
health care benefits for their employees. Privatization should not come
on the backs of the employees. Our economy is in trouble. Health care
costs are rising--and millions of Americans lack any health insurance.
Why does this administration want to make this problem even worse?
Our democracy depends on a strong civil service. We need a civil
service in this country that is independent, reliable, and free of
cronyism and political patronage. We are trying to spread democracy to
Iraq and to nurture new democracies around the world. Yet right here at
home, there are some who want to get rid of a pillar of democracy--our
independent Federal workforce.
As a Senator from Maryland, I am so proud to serve over 100,000
Federal employees. I wish you could meet them the way I do--on the job
and at the supermarket. I represent people who are Nobel Prize winners
at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. I represent FBI agents. I represent the
National Security Agency, and the faculty of the U.S. Naval Academy.
I know what Federal employees do. They work hard every day. They did
not get their jobs because they volunteered on someone's campaign. The
civilian employees at the Defense Department work hard to support our
troops and to protect our Nation. They are committed to securing the
homeland, and to making sure our soldiers are ready to protect us.
If we are going to contract out Defense Department work, we need to
be very careful. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of
homeland security. America's military bases and facilities are all
potential terrorist targets. Those who work there must be trusted and
carefully screened. Yet the Department of Defense wants to get rid of
trusted employees who have served our Nation for years--and replace
with who knows what. What would happen if the private company changed
ownership, or is bought by a foreign company? What safeguards are there
to protect our military and our military infrastructure?
That is why I am cosponsoring the Kennedy amendment. This amendment
simply calls for civilian Defense Department employees to be treated
fairly when they are competing for their own jobs. Federal employees'
jobs are on the line. The independence of our Federal workforce is on
the line. At the very least, the competition should be fair. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it was necessary to handle it separately
because it was already a pending amendment, and it had to be withdrawn.
I now ask for its consideration and adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1299) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, just briefly let me say this: I know my tie
isn't much, but I have been advised by staff and others it is sure
better than seersucker.
Amendment No. 1300
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a further amendment to the desk
and state that this is separate and apart from the managers' package.
It is an amendment I submit on behalf of Senator Hatch. It has not been
cleared by my friend from Arizona. When the title is read, it will be
apparent to the Members why.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Hatch,
proposes an amendment numbered 1300:
amendment no. 1300
(Purpose: To appropriate funds to settle certain claims of United
States prisoners of war who performed forced or slave labor for
Japanese companies during World War II)
After section 8123, insert the following:
TITLE IX--SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR SLAVE LABOR FOR JAPANESE COMPANIES
DURING WORLD WAR II
SEC. 901. PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR
FOR FORCED OR SLAVE LABOR FOR JAPANESE
COMPANIES DURING WORLD WAR II.
(a) Payment of Compensation Required.--Subject to the
availability of appropriated the funds Secretary of Defense
shall pay to each surviving former prisoner of war
compensation as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Compensation.--The compensation to be paid under
subsection (a) is as follows:
(1) In the case of a living former prisoner of war, to the
living former prisoner of war in the amount of $10,000.
(c) Identification of Individuals as Former Prisoners of
War.--(1) An individual seeking compensation under this
section shall submit to the Secretary of Defense an
application therefor containing such information as the
Secretary shall require. Only one application shall be
submitted with respect to each individual seeking treatment
as a former prisoner of war for purposes of this section.
(2) The Secretary shall take such actions as the Secretary
considers appropriate to identify and locate individuals
eligible for treatment as former prisoners of war for
purposes of this section.
(d) Treatment as Former Prisoner of War.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (3), the Secretary of Defense shall treat an
individual as a former prisoner of war if--
(A) the name of the individual appears on any official list
of the Imperial Government of Japan, or of the United States
Government, as having been imprisoned at any time during
World War II in a camp in Japan or territories occupied by
Japan where individuals were forced to provide labor; or
(B) evidence otherwise demonstrates that the individual is
entitled to treatment as a former prisoner of war.
(2) Any reasonable doubt under this subsection shall be
resolved in favor of the claimant.
(3) The treatment of an individual as a former prisoner of
war under paragraph (1) shall be rebutted only by clear and
convincing evidence.
(e) Timing of Payment.--The Secretary of Defense shall pay
compensation to a former prisoner of war, under subsection
(a) not later than 30 days after determining that
compensation is payable to or on behalf of the former
prisoner of war under this section.
(f) Priority in Payments.--The Secretary of Defense shall
complete the processing of applications under this section in
a manner that provides, to the maximum extent practicable,
for the payment of compensation to former prisoners of war
during their natural lives, with payments prioritized based
on age and health of the claimant.
(j) Funding.--(1) From funds available otherwise in this
Act up to $49,000,000 may be made available to carry out this
title.
(2) The amount made available by paragraph (1) shall remain
available for obligation and expenditure during the two-year
period beginning on October 1, 2003.
(3) Any amounts made available by paragraph (1) that have
not been obligated as of
[[Page S9565]]
September 30, 2005, shall revert to the Treasury as of that
date.
SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Former prisoner of war.--The term ``former prisoner of
war'' means any individual who--
(A) was a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
a civilian employee of the United States, or an employee of a
contractor of the United States during World War II;
(B) served in or with the United States combat forces
during World War II;
(C) was captured and held as a prisoner of war or prisoner
by Japan in the course of such service; and
(D) was required by one or more Japanese companies to
perform forced or slave labor during World War II.
(2) Japanese company.--The term ``Japanese company''
means--
(A) any business enterprise, corporation, company,
association, partnership, or sole proprietorship having its
principal place of business within Japan or organized or
incorporated under the laws of Japan or any political
subdivision thereof; and
(B) any subsidiary or affiliate of an entity in Japan, as
described in subparagraph (A), if controlled in fact by the
entity, whether currently incorporated or located in Japan or
elsewhere.
(5) World war ii.--The term ``World War II'' means the
period beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on August 8,
1945.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today, entitled the
Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003, is
important because it recognizes the struggle to compensate American
POWs once held and forced into slave labor for private Japanese
companies during World War II.
For those of my colleagues who aren't aware of what our valiant
soldiers endured, please let me enlighten you.
On April 9, 1942, Allied forces in the Philippines were forced to
surrender Bataan to the Japanese. Ten thousand to 12,000 American
soldiers were forced to march some 60 miles in broiling heat. We have
all heard of this deadly trek, known as the Bataan Death March.
What most people do not realize is, after a lengthy internment under
horrific conditions, thousands of these POWs were shipped to Japan in
the holds of freighters known as ``Hell Ships.'' Once in Japan, many of
these POWs were forced into slave labor for private Japanese steel
mills and other private companies until the end of the war. During the
war, over 27,465 Americans were captured and interned by the Japanese;
tragically, only 16,000 made it home.
Let me tell you about some of these brave men.
At our Judiciary Committee hearing a few years ago, we heard from
some of these remarkable veterans who put a human face on this tragic
part of history. They are all heroes.
I remember so well Mr. Bigelow, who, during his internment lost his
leg from a mining accident and the lack of proper medical treatment. At
a height of 6 feet, 4 inches, Mr. Bigelow weighed less than 100 pounds
at the time of his release. Tragically, he died last week--- without
ever receiving the recognition that he deserved, recognition that we as
a body can give him.
Mr. President, how many more have to die before we finally pay them
the tribute they deserve?
At our hearing, we heard how the POWs stuck together and helped each
other make it through each day and endured frequent beatings for doing
so.
We heard how Mr. Tenney and others kept their spirits up by
entertaining their buddies and trading with Japanese guards for a few
meager supplies.
We heard how brave men like Terrence Kirk built a makeshift camera
out of a stolen x-ray plate to document the condition of dying POWs so
they would not be forgotten.
Let me say to the veterans who have shared their stories with me--and
I know some of these men personally thank you. All of them are heroes
for their bravery on the battlefields and in the prison camps.
They are heroes for the innumerable displays of compassion and love
for their fellow man.
They are heroes for their perseverance through circumstances most of
us can barely imagine.
They are living testaments to the indomitable human spirit that is
the fabric of this great nation, the United States of America. Everyone
here living in freedom owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude.
Unfortunately, global political and security needs of the time often
overshadowed their legitimate claims for justice and they were once
again asked to sacrifice for their country.
Following the end of the war, for example, our government allegedly
instructed many of the POWs not to discuss their experiences and
treatment. Some were even asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.
Consequently, many Americans remain unaware of the atrocities that took
place and the suffering our POWs endured.
Just ask the school children of today. Most know little about the
Bataan Death March and nothing about the fact that our soldiers were
shipped to Japan and sold as slave labor.
That is inexcusable. We must recognize their sacrifice, and the
amendment I offer today supports that effort.
Through the years, various efforts have been made to offer some
compensation for the POWs held in Japan.
Under the War Claims Act, our government has made meager payments of
a dollar a day for missed meals and $1.50 per day for lost wages.
Clearly this is inadequate.
Following the passage of a California statute extending the statute
of limitations for World War II claims until 2010 and the recent
litigation involving victims of Holocaust, the former POWs in Japan
have attempted through the courts to seek compensation from the private
companies which profited from their labor.
What role has our government played in this quest?
In the Holocaust litigation, the U.S. played a facilitating role in
discussions between the German companies and the victims. The Justice
Department also declined to file a statement of interest in the
litigation--even when requested by the court. The efforts of the
administration were entirely appropriate and the settlement was an
invaluable step toward moving forward from the past.
Here, in contrast, there has been little effort by our government,
through the State Department or otherwise, to help these POWs with
their claims. In fact, quite the opposite has been true.
In response to a request from the court, the Justice Department
actually filed a statement of interest which was very damaging to the
claims of the POWs--stating in essence that their claims were barred by
the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan and the War Claims Act. Personally,
I don't think the government had the authority to waive these claims.
Unbelievably, the Justice Department continues to argue in these court
cases on behalf of the Japanese companies and against our POWs.
This contrasting treatment raises the legitimate questions of whether
this administration has a consistent policy governing whether and how
to weigh in during these World War II-era cases? From a moral
perspective, the claims of those forced into labor by private German
companies and private Japanese companies appear to be of similar merit,
yet they have spurred different responses from the administration.
Why?
I have asked this question to the State Department, and have not
received a satisfactory response.
What can the United States of America--the country these men
sacrificed for--do to resolve this matter in a fair and appropriate
manner?
With the help of Senator Feinstein, in 2000, we moved through the
Judiciary Committee S. 1902, the Japanese Records Disclosure Act. This
bill set up a commission to declassify thousands of Japanese Imperial
Army records held by the U.S. government after appropriate screening
for sensitive information such as that pertaining to national security.
That bill, however, was not enough. We need to do more.
The Senate attempted to fulfill our government's responsibility to
these men by including a provision in S. 2549, the fiscal year 2001
Department of Defense authorization bill. This legislation would have
allowed payments of a $20,000 gratuity to POWs from Bataan and
Corregidor who were forced into labor. But unfortunately, the provision
was stripped in conference, due in large part, I believe, to pressure
from the previous Administration.
We also passed S. Con. Res. 158, a resolution at the end of the 106th
Congress
[[Page S9566]]
which stated the moral force of the claims of the POWs and expressed
the sense of the Congress that the United States government should use
its best efforts to ``facilitate a dialogue'' to discuss a resolution
to the claims. But this has received a less than satisfactory response
from the administration.
We must ask ourselves--can Congress do more?
Can the executive branch do more?
I think so.
We must.
And it is for that reason that I am offering the Resolution of Claims
of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003.
This legislation would show these POWs that we have not forgotten
them and that we will not let them be victimized by the Japanese
companies a second time.
My amendment would authorize the payment of compensation to former
prisoners of war for forced labor for Japanese companies during World
War II. Those surviving POWs who are still living--and there are not
many--would receive $10,000. This is a mere fraction of what they truly
deserve, and I intend to seek additional amounts next year to fulfill
our obligation to our heroes.
Mr. President, this legislation is essential.
Congress is the last recourse for these POWs.
Instead of helping, our government has let them down. And so, if we
do not stand up for them, who will?
I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to do what we can
to show these brave POWs that their country has not forgotten them; it
is the least we can do.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in relation to the amendment offered by
the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, related to compensation for American
prisoners of war in Japan, I do not object but must of necessity vote
``present'' because, as a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, I cannot
in good conscience vote in favor of a measure that sets a precedent for
compensation of American prisoners of war that could in some fashion be
viewed as benefiting me personally.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a prisoner of war provision
offered by Senator Hatch. We have agreed to start the process of
dealing with claims of these individuals. Since our good friend from
Arizona was in fact a prisoner of war, he did not want to participate
in the adoption or consideration of this amendment. We are honoring his
request. I ask for the adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1300) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Hawaii who has
the Democratic portion of the managers' package.
Amendments Nos. 1301 through 1316, En Bloc
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk 16 amendments as part
of the managers' package and ask unanimous consent for their immediate
consideration en bloc.
They are: Senator Feinstein amendment on secure cell phones; Senator
Boxer amendment on Shortstop, an Army program; Senator Durbin amendment
on the 932nd Airlift Command; Senator Mikulski amendment on Project
Ancile; Senator Mikulski amendment on knowledge management fusion;
Senator Schumer amendment on Large Energy National Shock Tunnel;
Senator Dorgan amendment on ultra-low-power battlefield sensor system;
Senator Biden amendment on nuclear debris collection; Senator Bayh
amendment on M1A1 tank transmissions; Senator Inouye amendment on civil
rights history in the Army; Senator Harkin amendment on airplane parts;
Senator Wyden amendment on Iraq reconstruction contracts; Senator Boxer
amendment on travel expenses; Senator Biden amendment on C-5s; Senator
Schumer amendment on Iraq report; Senator Byrd amendment on travel
credit card checks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes amendments
numbered 1301 through 1316 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
amendment no. 1301
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Procurement,
Defense-Wide, $20,000,000 for procurement of secure cellular telephones
for the Department of Defense and the elements of the intelligence
community)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
Act under the heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', to
$20,000,000 may be available for procurement of secure
cellular telephones for the Department of Defense and the
elements of the intelligence community.
amendment no. 1302
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, $5,000,000 for procurement of
Shortstop Electronic Protection Systems for critical force protection)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', up to $5,000,000 may be available to
support Shortstop Electronic Protection Systems (SEPS)
research and development efforts.
amendment no. 1303
(Purpose: To require a study of the mission of the 932nd Airlift Wing,
Scott Air Force Base, Illinois)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. The Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation
with the Chief of Air Force Reserve, shall study the mission
of the 932nd Airlift Wing, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois,
and evaluate whether it would be appropriated to substitute
for that mission a mixed mission of transporting patients,
passengers, and cargo that would increase the airlift
capability of the Air Force while continuing the use and
training of aeromedical evacuation personnel. The Secretary
shall submit a report on the results of the study and
evaluation to the congressional defense committees not later
than January 16, 2004.
amendment no. 1304
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense Wide'', up to $3,000,000 may be used for
Project Ancile.
amendment no. 1305
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', up to $2,000,000 may be used for
Knowledge Management Fusion.
amendment no. 1306
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, $3,000,000 for the Large
Energy National Shock Tunnel (LENS))
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army'', up to $3,000,000 may be available for the
Large Energy National Shock Tunnel (LENS).
amendment no. 1307
(Purpose: To provide funds for the Ultra-low Power Battlefield Sensor
System)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. In addition to amounts provided in this Act for
Ultra-low Power Battlefield Sensor System, up to an
additional $7,000,000 may be used from the total amount
appropriated by title IV ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', for Ultra-low Power Battlefield
Sensor System.
amendment no. 1308
(Purpose: To require a report on the feasibility of developing and
deploying a nuclear debris collection and analysis capability to permit
the characterization of detonated nuclear devices)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) If a terrorist group were to acquire the necessary
fissile material for a nuclear explosive device, it would not
be difficult for the group to construct such a device, the
explosion of which could kill and injure thousands, or even
hundreds of thousands, of people and destroy a large area of
a city.
(2) If a terrorist group were to acquire a complete nuclear
weapon from a nation which has constructed nuclear weapons,
it is likely that the group would be able to detonate the
device with similar results.
(3) A nation supplying either complete nuclear weapons or
special nuclear material to
[[Page S9567]]
terrorists might believe that it could escape retaliation by
the United States, as the United States would not be able to
determine the origin of either a weapon or its fissile
material.
(4) It is possible, however, to determine the country of
origin of fissile material after a nuclear explosion,
provided that samples of the radioactive debris from the
explosion are collected promptly and analyzed in appropriate
laboratories.
(5) If radioactive debris is collected soon enough after a
nuclear explosion, it is also possible to determine the
characteristics of the nuclear explosive device involved,
which information can assist in locating and dismantling
other nuclear devices that may threaten the United States.
(6) If countries that might contemplate supplying nuclear
weapons or fissile material to terrorists know that their
assistance can be traced, they are much less likely to allow
terrorists access to either weapons or material.
(7) It is in the interest of the United States to acquire a
capability to collect promptly the debris from a nuclear
explosion that might occur in any part of the Nation.
(b) Sense of the Senate on Nuclear Debris Collection and
Analysis Capability.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Secretary of Defense should develop and deploy a
nuclear debris collection and analysis capability sufficient
to enable characterization of any nuclear device that might
be exploded in the United States;
(2) the capability should incorporate airborne debris
collectors, either permanently installed on dedicated
aircraft or available for immediate use on a class of
aircraft, stationed so that a properly equipped and manned
aircraft is available to collect debris from a nuclear
explosion anywhere in the United States and transport such
debris to an appropriate laboratory in a timely fashion; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable, the capability
should be compatible with collection and analysis systems
used by the United States to characterize overseas nuclear
explosions.
(c) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the feasibility of developing and
deploying the capability described in subsection (b)(1).
amendment no. 1309
(Purpose: To make available amounts available for Operation and
Maintenance, Army, up to $15,000,000 for upgrades of M1A1 Abrams tank
transmissions)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II of this
Act under the heading ``OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY'' up
to $15,000,000 may be made available for upgrades of M1A1
Abrams tank transmissions.
amendment no. 1310
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title II of
this Act under the heading ``Operations and Maintenance,
Army'', up to $2,000,000 may be used to promote civil rights
education and history in the Army.
amendment no. 1311
(Purpose: To require reports on safety issues due to defective parts)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
SEC. 8124. REPORTS ON SAFETY ISSUES DUE TO DEFECTIVE PARTS.
(a) Report from the Secretary.--The Secretary shall by
March 31, 2004 examine and report back to the congressional
defense committees on:
(1) how to implement a system for tracking safety-critical
parts so that parts discovered to be defective, including due
to faulty or fraudulent work by a contractor or
subcontractor, can be identified and found;
(2) appropriate standards and procedures to ensure timely
notification of contracting agencies and contractors about
safety issues including parts that may be defective, and
whether the Government Industry Data Exchange Program should
be made mandatory;
(3) efforts to find and test airplane parts that have been
heat treated by companies alleged to have done so improperly;
and
(4) whether contracting agencies and contractors have been
notified about alleged improper heat treatment of airplane
parts.
(b) Report from the Comptroller General.--The Comptroller
General shall examine and report back to the congressional
defense committees on:
(1) the oversight of subcontractors by prime contractors,
and testing and quality assurance of the work of the
subcontractors; and
(2) the oversight of prime contractors by the Department,
the accountability of prime contractors for overseeing
subcontractors, and the use of enforcement mechanisms by the
Department.
amendment no. 1312
(Purpose: To require a report on the reconstruction of Iraq)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress, in writing, a report on contracts for
reconstruction and other services in Iraq that are funded in
whole or in part with funds available to the Department of
Defense. The report shall detail--
(1) the process and standards for designing and awarding
such contracts, including assistance or consulting services
provided by contractors in that process;
(2) the process and standards for awarding limited or sole-
source contracts, including the criteria for justifying the
awarding of such contracts;
(3) any policies that the Secretary has implemented or
plans to implement to provide for independent oversight of
the performance by a contractor of services in designing and
awarding such contracts;
(4) any policies that the Secretary has implemented or
plans to implement to identify, assess, and prevent any
conflict of interest relating to such contracts for
reconstruction;
(5) any policies that the Secretary has implemented or
plans to implement to ensure public accountability of
contractors and to identify any fraud, waste, or abuse
relating to such contracts for reconstruction;
(6) the process and criteria used to determine the
percentage of profit allowed on cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contracts for reconstruction or other services in Iraq; and
(7) a good faith estimate of the expected costs and
duration of all contracts for reconstruction or other
services in Iraq.
AMENDMENT NO. 1313
(Purpose: To provide travel reimbursement to the spouses and dependents
of deployed military personnel when they visit family members)
At the end of section 8083, add the following:
``Not more than $1 million of the amount so credited may be
available to provide assistance to spouses and other
dependents of deployed members of the Armed Forces to defray
the travel expenses of such spouses and other dependents when
visiting family members.''
AMENDMENT NO. 1314
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, $19,700,000 for C-5 aircraft in-service
modifications for the procurement of additional C-5 aircraft Avionics
Modernization Program kits)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
Act under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', up
to $19,700,000 may be available for C-5 aircraft in-service
modifications for the procurement of additional C-5 aircraft
Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) kits.,
amendment no. 1315
(Purpose: To require a report on the establishment of police and
military forces in Iraq)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. (a) Report on Establishment of Police and
Military Forces in Iraq.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall, in coordination with the Secretary of State, submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
establishment of police and military forces in all of the 18
provinces of Iraq, including--
(1) the costs incurred by the United States in establishing
Iraqi police and military units;
(2) a schedule for the completion of the establishment of
Iraqi police and military units;
(3) an assessment of the effect of the ongoing creation and
final establishment of Iraqi police and military units on the
number of United States military personnel required to be
stationed in Iraq;
(4) an assessment of the effect of the establishment of an
Iraqi police force on the safety of United States military
personnel stationed in Iraq; and
(5) an assessment of the effectiveness of the Iraqi police
force, as so established, in preventing crime and insuring
the safety of the Iraq people.
(b) Updates.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
submittal of the report required by subsection (b), and every
120 days thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress an update of such report.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and
Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
amendment no. 1316
(Purpose: To continue in effect a provision of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2003, relating to evaluations of
creditworthiness for issuance of Government charge cards)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Section 8149(b) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248; 116 Stat. 1572)
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) This submission shall remain in effect for fiscal
year 2004.''.
amendment No. 1311
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, two weeks ago, the company Hydroform USA,
its subsidiary Temperform, and three company managers were indicted for
conspiracy and making false statements. This is just the latest event
in
[[Page S9568]]
a long horror story that may still threaten the safety of both military
and civilian aviation. And it raises serious questions, yet again,
about our ability and commitment to root out defense fraud that attacks
our taxpayers and our troops.
The story is told at length in a special issue of Defense Week dated
July 3 and written by John Donnelly. It starts with a company called
West Coast Aluminum Heat-Treating Company, which had a plant in La
Mirada, CA. Many aluminum parts on airplanes and rockets are heat-
threaten to stengthen the parts, reduce corrosion, and prevent cracking
and fatigue. West Coast was paid to do this by a large number of
airplane manufacturers and suppliers. But beginning in 1981, they did
the heat treatment for far less time and at lower temperatures than
required. They didn't falsified testing of the parts. This fraud went
on undetected, on hundreds of thousands of parts, for fifteen years.
The parts ended up on a long list of military airplanes, helicopters,
and rockets from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other
contractors, as well as on many commercial planes and helicopters from
Boeing, Airbus, and other manufacturers. In 1996, a West Coast foreman
finally blew the whistle to Boeing.
Boeing, observed by the Federal Aviation Administration, eventually
tested 1,634 parts for hardness and electrical conductivity. They found
that 18 percent of the parts were critical, and that 11 percent of the
parts did not meet specifications because of the fraudulent heat
treatment. Tests on hundreds of other parts had similar results. But
these tests may not reveal the full extent of the problems. Other, more
informative tests that destroy the parts are needed to assess heat
treatment well. And even parts supposedly tested may not be good,
although Boeing claimed that subcontractors had tested many parts, the
FAA found that six of the subcontractors could not document such
testing; the other three subcontractors they contacted did have test
records showing the parts were good, but when the FAA tested the parts,
they found the parts did not in fact meet specifications.
Even though the fraud was revealed in 1996 and Boeing disqualified
West Coast as a vendor in 1997, it took another year before Boeing and
the Government bothered to let other customers know that the parts
could be defective. They finally issued alerts on the Government-
Industry Data Exchange Program called GIDEP, in 1998. For those two
years other defense contractors continued to use West Coast. In
addition, the alert that Boeing finally issued focused on
``discrepancies'' in paperwork, and claimed that the parts were fine.
Government oversight was equally weak. Although the FAA concluded
that Boeing had violated federal regulations because it did not
adequately supervise its subcontractors, it said the statute of
limitations had expired and hence it could not pursue enforcement
action. Worse, the Defense Logistics Agency wrote reports suggesting
that West Coast-treated parts were fine, based on a database of 253,736
parts. But they did not actually know which parts were from West Coast,
and they knew that many of the parts in the database were not even made
of aluminum.
In 1998, West Coast was sold, and in 2000 its two executives were
convicted, sentenced, and fined. The plant was bought by Temperform,
which proceeded to commit the same fraud on tens of thousands of
additional parts. It has been said that history repeats itself, first
as tragedy and then as farce. The Temperform replay of West Coast would
be amusing if it weren't still tragic. Temperform fired the West Coast
employees so that Boeing would approve the company as a vendor, then
promptly rehired them. The same heat-treating fraud continued
undetected, and another employee finally blew the whistle again in
2000. Despite the plant's history, Boeing did not audit Temperform
until this time, and then allegedly found 37 deficiencies in their
quality assurance processes.
To this date, neither Boeing nor anyone else has ever issued a GIDEP
alert to let other companies know of the Temperform fraud. A Government
safety alert, issued only in 2002, went only to Government agencies.
Thus, Lockheed Martin continued to buy parts from Temperform for more
than two years. Again, the Government accused Boeing of mismanagement
but declined to do anything about it. The plant again was sold in 2002,
and, as I mentioned, three company executives were recently indicted.
One of those three, the manager in charge of heat-treating procedures,
was one of the West Coast employees who were rehired.
That is all history. But I have not yet explained a key reason why
this remains a continuing threat. Almost all of the testing of parts I
mentioned was of commercial parts. The military services claim that
they cannot identify which parts were treated by a particular company,
even for safety critical parts. Typically major weapon system programs
are now managed by private contractors, which then have a large number
of subcontractors supplying parts. West Coast and Temperform contracted
with many of those subcontractors. Apparently we cannot negotiate this
maze to find which parts, even safety critical parts, were fraudulently
treated. Thus, few military parts have been tested, and if they were
found unsatisfactory, it is not clear how they would be replaced.
This is not the first time this problem has come up. Not long ago the
Pentagon bought 780,000 chemical protective suits from a company called
Isratex. We cannot find 250,000 of those suits either. And last year
the Navy could not find 42,000 defective oxygen masks.
My amendment attempts at least to examine several of these systemic
issues. It requests that the Secretary of Defense report back to
Congress by March 31, 2004, on efforts to find and test the parts that
have been improperly heat-treated, and on notification of other
customers that their parts may be defective. The report also is to look
at how to implement a system for tracking safety-critical parts, and at
standards and procedures for notification on future safety issues.
The amendment also asks the General Accounting Office to submit a
report on issues regarding the prime contractor system that may be
partly at fault here. The GAO is to look at both the oversight of
subcontractors by the prime contractor--which is what they are paid to
do--and the oversight and enforcement of prime contractors by the
Department of Defense.
Hunderds of thousands of aluminum parts that are in our airplanes and
helicopters today have not been properly strengthened. Many of these
parts are safety-critical. Millions of people, civilian and military,
may be at risk if a plane crashes due to a failure of one of these
parts. We are at risk not only because of the fraud, but also because
of the failure all the way down the line--by small subcontractors, huge
plane manufacturers, and the Government--to catch the fraud, stop it in
a timely manner, notify others at risk, track or test the parts, or
hold anyone accountable for the oversight failures.
We must do better. This amendment is a small step toward fixing the
problems, and I intend to pursue this until I am confident such abuse
cannot happen again.
amendment no. 1316
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last year, Senator Grassley and I had an
amendment included in the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act
to crack down on the abuse of credit cards that are issued to Pentagon
employees. Today, we offer an amendment to extend those provisions
through fiscal year 2004.
The General Accounting Office has completed numerous studies on
Government-issued charge cards. These reports have highlighted the
Department of Defense as one of the worst abusers of those cards.
Defense Department employees have been caught red-handed using their
Government-issued credit card to pay for personal expenses such as
luxury cruises, concert tickets, Internet gambling, and even adult
entertainment. Incredibly, these abusive charges are being underwritten
by the U.S. taxpayer, to the tune of untold millions each year.
Based on this evidence, the GAO has recommended that DOD employees
should undergo credit checks before they are issued a Government charge
card. That is exactly what the amendment offered last year by Senator
Grassley and me required.
[[Page S9569]]
The GAO recently reported to our staffs that despite progress in
cracking down on some types of abuse, the Pentagon has not complied
with last year's Byrd-Grassley amendment. That is why we offer an
amendment to this Defense bill to extend last year's provision of the
Defense Appropriations Act to apply in fiscal year 2004.
The Pentagon should be on notice that it has to straighten out its
act with regard to charge card abuse, as well as a whole host of other
accounting problems. Ignoring laws that require the Department of
Defense to crack down on these problems is a serious mistake. Congress
should send the message loud and clear that we expect them to comply
with the Byrd-Grassley amendment on credit card abuse.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
muscular dystrophy research/muscle research consortium
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of
funding for the Muscular Dystrophy Research/Muscle Research Consortium
to study muscular disease. Funding will allow the consortium to conduct
critical research on muscular dystrophy through the Department of
Defense Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. I note that the
committee has stated its support for this very worthwhile program, in
the report to accompany the fiscal year 2004 DoD appropriations bill. I
urge the committee when conferencing with the House to include full
funding for this program.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. The committee has noted its
support of the program, and I assure my friend from Minnesota that the
committee will give its full consideration to this program while
conferencing with the House.
Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the chairman for his support, and I also not
that the House has included funding for this program. I look forward to
working with the chairman to protect this project during conference.
Roboscout Program
Mr. FEINGOLD: I would like to ask a question of the managers of the
bill: It is my understanding that the bill zeros out funding for the
Roboscout program, also called Combat Zones That See.
Mr. STEVENS: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD: It is further my understanding that zeroing out funding
for this program will prohibit any research and development on
Roboscout?
Mr. STEVENS: That is correct. The Department of Defense should not be
engaging in any work on the Roboscout program.
Mr. INOUYE: I concur with the Chairman. His statements express our
intent for this program quite well.
weapons of mass destruction Civil Support
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have long advocated the creation of 23
additional full-time National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil
Support Teams and have supported the location of at least one team in
each state and territory of the United States. I am pleased that last
year the Congress passed--and the President signed into law--a defense
authorization bill that required that these important teams be created.
I am also pleased that earlier this year the Senate passed a defense
authorization bill that includes $88.4 million for 12 new teams in
fiscal year 2004. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed
Services Committee for their support on this issue, and for including
language in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 DoD
authorization bill urging the Pentagon to include funding for the
remaining eleven teams in its fiscal year 2005 budget request.
I also want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their work on this issue. I
wonder if the managers would engage with me in a brief colloquy on this
subject.
Mr. STEVENS. I would.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. It is my understanding that the bill as amended by the
Chairman includes the full $88.4 million authorized by the Armed
Services Committee for 12 new Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
Teams. I ask the Chairman of the Committee and the Senator from Hawaii
[Mr. Inouye] if that is the case?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. So it is your understanding that the funding included
in the bill currently before the Senate includes sufficient funding to
man, equip, and train 12 new civil support teams?
Mr. STEVENS. That is my understanding.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the managers.
Abrams System Enhancement Program
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as we consider appropriations for our
men and women in uniform for the upcoming fiscal year, I would like to
take this opportunity to express my strong support for the M1A2 System
Enhancement Program.
As our experience in Iraq has demonstrated, the Abrams tank remains
crucial to the efforts to the United States Armed Forces. The tanks of
the 3rd Infantry Division were among the first on the ground in Iraq.
However, the armed reconnaissance regiment of the CounterAttack Corps
(CATK)--the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR)--is fighting with older,
less capable M1A1 tanks.
The M1A2 System Enhancement Program retrofits existing tanks to
incorporate the most sophisticated technologies, allowing them to best
communicate with and protect the rest of the CounterAttack Corps. I
believe it is critical to provide our soldiers in the 3rd Armed Cavalry
Regiment--the eyes and ears of the CounterAttack Corps--with the most
modern equipment available to them.
The State of Ohio, home to the Lima Army Tank Plant, plays a critical
role in this modernization effort. The thousands of men and women who
have worked at the Lima Army Tank Plant have played a long and
distinguished role in the history of the mighty Abrams. This continued
during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the plant's employees responded to
a call by the Defense Department and within the period of just one week
designed, tested, produced and shipped to Iraq armored protection to
bolster the armor around the exhaust.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the
House of Representatives in conference to ensure that sufficient funds
are maintained to upgrade the tanks of the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, better serving our men and women in uniform and the U.S.
military in their efforts to promote peace, security and democracy in
Iraq and other parts of the world.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the
statement of Senator Voinovich regarding the importance of the M1A2
System Enhancement Program. I strongly support providing the necessary
funding to modernize the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) tank fleet.
I would ask Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye to work with us to find
a way to address this important issue in conference.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to join the junior Senator
from Ohio and my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, to urge the
Chairman of the Senate. Appropriations Committee to ensure that the
Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Defense Appropriations bill we send to
the President provides funding for at least one squadron of Abrams M1A2
SEP tanks for the U.S. Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
Like all Americans, I proudly watched on the nightly news as the U.S.
Army's Abrams tanks again proved themselves an indispensable asset in
the recent war in Iraq.
A critical element in the success in those battles--and any likely
future conflict--is the U.S. Army's CounterAttack Corps. The armed
reconnaissance regiment of the CATK is the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, which needs the most up to date equipment to best protect our
fighting men and women. The 3rd ACR must be upgraded to the Abrams M1A2
SEP to reflect new technologies.
The ground combat vehicle defense industrial base is critical to our
national security as we transform our military services into more
lethal, survivable and sustainable entities, particularly as we prepare
for new programs such as Future Combat Systems.
[[Page S9570]]
I am proud that Scranton, Pennsylvania is a critical part of that
industrial base. In Scranton, some two hundred highly dedicated, highly
skilled workers--many of whom are members of UAW Local 1193--
manufacture critical components of the M1A2 SEP, such as turret race
rings, LRUs and suspensions.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in Conference to ensure
that the fighting men and women of the 3rd ACR and the workers that
together make up the backbone of our national security are protected
well into the future by providing funding for at least one squadron of
M1A2 SEP tanks in the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to
highlight the absolutely critical need to fund the Abrams tank program
and the M1A2 System Enhancement Program, specifically.
We have a moral obligation to our military forces to see that they
are armed with the best equipment available when they put their lives
on the line. The M1A2 System Enhancement Program is an important step
in achieving this goal because it will help ensure the tank crews and
the troops they protect get the highest, cutting edge technology
possible. Like Senator Voinovich, I am extremely proud of the employees
at the Lima Army Tank Plant, who themselves take such pride in the
important work they do every day to make sure our tanks continue to be
the best in the world.
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to thank my colleagues for their remarks
regarding the M1A2 System Enhancement Program. I understand their
concern with the need to provide resources to allow for the
modernization of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment tank fleet, and I
look forward to working with them as we begin conference with the House
to address this important matter.
netrp program
Mr. SESSIONS. As the Chairman and Ranking Member are aware, for the
last 7 years, since 1997, the Department of Defense has sponsored a
unique biomedical research effort called the Neurotoxin Exposure
Treatment Research Program or NETRP. This program conducts medical
research that has wide applications in protecting and treating our
soldiers, as well as advancing medical research that can lead to a cure
for Parkinson's disease, which afflicts more than one million
Americans.
The program addresses the protection of American soldiers from a wide
range of exposures including chemical warfare agents, potential toxins
in military uniforms and jet fuel, and radiation from radar and
communications systems. Findings from this military research then have
broad application to those diagnosed with Parkinson's and other
neurodegenerative disorders.
This year's House of Representatives DOD Appropriations bill includes
an increase in NETRP funding from the 2003 level of $21.25 million to
$31 million--a solid investment in protecting our soldiers that can
have the added benefit of saving or vastly improving the lives of
millions of Americans.
Will the Chairman consider accepting the House proposal in
conference?
Mr. STEVENS. I can assure the Senator from Alabama that I will give
consideration during conference to the House proposal to increase NETRP
funding levels.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. DURBIN. I join my colleague from Alabama in thanking the Chairman
for his assurance to give this provision all due consideration during
conference, and urge our Ranking Member, the distinguished Senator from
Hawaii, to likewise give consideration to this vital research to
protect our soldiers, as well as benefit our citizens with
neurodegenerative diseases.
Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to join in that assurance.
ec-130j modifications
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee regarding Special Operations
Command's information warfare platform, the ED-130J, which is funded in
the Defense Appropriations bill.
The 193rd Special Operations Wing (SOW), Pennsylvania Air National
Guard, conducts information warfare missions such as psychological
operations (PSYOP) civil affairs radio and television broadcasts,
Command Control Communications Counter Measures (C3CM) and limited
intelligence gathering. Because many of the missions carried out are
often classified, the public at large usually does not know the extent
to which this unit has shaped events prior to conflict. In many cases,
their mission has made conflict unnecessary or has reduced the loss of
life.
Last year, the Senate provided $87 million for a C-130J aircraft to
be purchased and converted into an EC-130J platform that is used by the
193rd SOW. This sum was enough to purchase a C-130J, but not the unique
components that are to be fitted into the platform. I thank the
Committee for its support of this important platform by its inclusion
of $10 million in the Senate Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
I urge SOCOM to fully fund the unique components that will allow for
the conversion of one C-130J into an EC-130J aircraft.
I ask the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee to support the EC-130J modifications for
Special Operations Command.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an important platform for SOCOM,
as we have clearly demonstrated by our support in this bill.
These modifications are important to the mission of SOCOM and the
reason for inclusion of $10 million of additional funding in the fiscal
year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee also approved
funds that could be used for these modifications in the Supplemental
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would also expect the Department to give
full consideration to supporting this worthwhile project.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the fiscal year
2004 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to
consider the importance of protecting our Naval ships and sailors,
particularly in strategic ports, such as the port of Phildelphia, where
heavy commercial and military traffic coexist. I strongly believe that
it is critical we do everything we can to ensure the installation of
safeguards against future acts of terrorism. We must avoid another
tragedy like the October 12, 2000 terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole
in Yemen which claimed the life of 17 U.S. Sailors.
Recently, quad hull steel caisson technology has been identified as
an effective protection mechanism for such ships and their crews. I
encourage the Defense Appropriations Committee to pursue a
demonstration project focusing on this technology that can lead to full
production of these quad hull modules on a timely basis.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote on the
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to
H.R 2658.
I share the Senator's concerns about our National Guard troops being
deployed overseas for long deployments. I understand that the families
of these troops are anxiously awaiting the return of their loved ones.
And I, too, am deeply concerned about our troops being sent on
dangerous and ill-conceived missions abroad.
I regret, however, that I could not support this amendment because,
once the brave men and women of our Armed Forces are deployed, we
should not micromanage their deployment. The ability of our Reserve and
Guard Forces to work together seamlessly with the regular Active Duty
Forces is critical. I am concerned that if we limit the length of
deployment of our Guard and Reserve troops, we will fundamentally
change this ``Total Force'' capability--and that is not a step that is
in our interest today.
Before making this vote, I closely consulted with the National Guard
in my State. They expressed to me the concerns I have noted. They
expressed their concern that limiting the length of troop deployment
will make them unusable for the Defense Department and therefore
irrelevant to the American people. They do not want to become second-
tier forces. Any change to their status should be carefully crafted in
consultation with them, and should be carefully debated here to ensure
[[Page S9571]]
that the national security interests of the United States are fully
protected.
But the Senator from West Virginia was right to bring this debate to
the floor. The Guard and Reserve have been, and continue to be, heavily
relied on by our country. This puts a tremendous strain on these brave
men and women and on their families and we should look into ways in
which we can reduce this burden. We should also ensure that our leaders
are up front with the American people about the nature of the
commitments that we undertake and the costs that they will be asked to
bear in any military deployment. This clarity was not forthcoming in
the debate over going to war in Iraq, and it is still not forthcoming
today. The elected representatives of the American people are pressing
the administration for answers, but too often, timeframes and budgets
and straightforward assessments are elusive. I will continue to join my
colleagues in fighting to ensure that Congress and the American people
are given the answers they deserve to these vital questions.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to
address my strong concern with the safety of U.S. military helicopters.
As my colleagues may be aware, yesterday, a MH-53E Sea Dragon
helicopter crashed roughly 10 miles southwest of the island of Sicily,
which is home to U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella. Four members of the
U.S. Armed Forces lost their lives in this tragic accident.
During my time in the Senate, I have continued to raise the issue of
aviation safety with our Defense Department. I believe it is crucial
that we provide the funding necessary to provide for the safety of our
men and women in uniform who ride in military helicopters--including
funds for required maintenance, training, and modernization.
On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave
American soldiers--Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief
Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs--who lost their lives when their Apache
helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine
training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO
allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked
at that time, the United States owes David, Kevin, and so many other
service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to
repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in
John chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends.''
As such, I strongly support a section of the report accompanying the
version of the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 passed
by the House of Representatives, H.R. 2658, which calls on the Army to
provide a report describing mishaps sustained by Apache aircraft in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, the language reads:
The Committee is additionally concerned about the unusually
high number of mishaps sustained by Apache aircraft in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The high incident rate may have
resulted from the extensive number of security support and
non-traditional missions flown by aircraft, as well as
adverse weather conditions. As such, the Army is directed to
provide the congressional defense committees a report, no
later than January 30, 2004, that enumerates and describes
the Apache aircraft mishaps, the cause and to the extent
known, the follow-up actions the Army is considering to
address any systemic problems.
As we begin conference on the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal
year 2004, I urge my Senate colleagues to retain this important
provision.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr President, I rise today in support of Air Force
Procurement funds to purchase additional kits for the C-5 Avionics
Modernization Program, AMP.
The Air Force requested these kits in their Unfunded Priorities List
for Fiscal Year 2004, and both the House and Senate Defense
authorization bills provided additional funding. These funds would be
used to help put the AMP installation back on schedule to be completed
by fiscal year 2007.
The Senate defense authorization bill includes a requirement to
update the Mobility Requirements Study. I believe this study will
almost certainly conclude that we do not have enough airlift capability
to support our requirements. With this in mind, now is not the time to
decommission any airlift assets. We are currently retiring C-141
aircraft. And the C-17 is a magnificent plane which has performed
exceptionally well in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
This year's budget provides for 11 new C-17s, nevertheless we cannot
purchase C-17s fast enough to fulfill our airlift requirements--that is
why we need this C-5 avionics modernization program. This installation
will extend the life and improve the capability of C-5s as well as
contribute to our national defense for years to come.
The Air Force has purchased 10 AMP kits to date. The President's
budget request only proposed funding for 18 kits. With the addition of
monies to purchase more kits, the Air Force can achieve its most
desirable schedule for purchasing kits and enhancing the C-5 fleet. The
program is currently ahead of schedule and has performed exceptionally
well in testing.
The need for the C-5s capabilities is very clear. The C-5 carried
about half of all the cargo, 48 percent, in both Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom--flying 28 percent of the sorties in Iraqi Freedom and
35 percent of the sorties in Enduring Freedom. The AMP is necessary for
every plane in the fleet. In fact, General Handy, the Commander of U.S.
Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command, has said that he
strongly supports additional funding and wants to see the C-5 fleet get
the avionics and safety upgrades of AMP as soon as possible.
The AMP modification will make the fleet compliant with the new
Global Air Traffic Management standards established by the
International Civil Aviation Organization. By making the planes
compliant with the new Global, GATM, standards, the C-5 can use shorter
flight paths and consume less fuel, thus operating more efficiently and
will be cheaper to maintain.
Even if the Air Force decides to retire some of the older C-5s in the
next 10 years, or move them completely to the Guard and Reserve, the
planes must have these upgrades to be viable and safe in high-density
flight areas, in particular Europe and the Pacific. These planes will
be less expensive to maintain for their lifespan of flight.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to add my thoughts to the debate
on the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank all our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, marines, and members of the Coast Guard for their hard work in
the ongoing fight against terrorism, their efforts in Iraq, and the
many other missions to which they have been assigned. These dedicated
men and women have volunteered to undertake, often at great personal
sacrifice, the task of protecting the American people and our way of
life. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the members of the United
States Armed Forces for their selfless service.
I am pleased that this bill appropriates an average pay raise of 4.15
percent for military personnel and lowers servicemembers' out-of-pocket
housing costs from 7.5 to 3.5 percent.
I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has fully funded at
the authorized level the 12 additional full-time Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams, WMD-CST, included in the Senate-passed
Department of Defense authorization bill. These teams, which are
staffed by full-time members of the National Guard, will play an
integral part in aiding first responders in their crucial work in the
immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. I have been a longtime
supporter of the creation of these teams and am encouraged that we are
well on our way to assuring that every State will have at least one
full-time WMD-CST.
I am also pleased that funding for controversial data-mining
programs, like the Terrorism Information Awareness Program and the
Combat Zones That See Program, have been zeroed out in this bill. The
untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining
is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and
private records on each and every American. Most Americans believe
their private lives should remain private. Data-mining programs run the
risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do
with terrorism but who trust that their credit reports, shopping
habits, and doctor visits would not become a part
[[Page S9572]]
of a gigantic computerized search engine, operating without any
controls or oversight.
Unfortunately this enormous spending bill also contains many
unnecessary items. I continue to be deeply concerned about the
priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by which we consider
the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills, a
concern I have voiced every year that I have been a Member of this
body. This bill includes $9.1 billion for missile defense, despite the
fact that it is an unproven program. We also continue to pour billions
of dollars into duplicative fighter aircraft programs. These are just
two of many examples of excess.
Despite the almost $370 billion appropriated, this bill still does
not accurately reflect the true cost of the defense budget. This bill
stays within the Department of Defense allocation only by rescinding $3
billion from prior supplemental appropriations and counting those funds
against this year's spending. Even worse, this bill contains absolutely
no funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, relying instead
on future supplemental appropriations. These accounting tricks will not
stop the ballooning of the national debt.
I was also disappointed that the Senate tabled the amendment to fully
fund the President's AIDS initiative. I was thrilled by the commitment
to fighting AIDS articulated by President Bush in his State of the
Union Address, and I believe that the Congress should follow through on
his historic and admirable pledge. Because I recognize that the AIDS
pandemic is so devastating, because the pandemic causes the kind of
instability and social collapse that present real security problems, I
supported this amendment. But before I did, I studied it carefully
because I needed to be certain that the offset would not diminish the
resources available to the men and women of our armed forces currently
deployed in dangerous missions in Iraq and elsewhere. Close scrutiny
gave me confidence that the senior Senator from West Virginia had
carefully crafted the offset to ensure that it would not do harm to our
troops.
I will vote for this bill. This legislation includes good elements,
such as the pay increases for military personnel and the funding for
the establishment of much-needed WMD-CSTs. However, poor fiscal
practices and accounting gimmicks cannot hide the fact that expensive,
unproven, and redundant weapons programs continue to drain away scarce
resources.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read
a third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the next vote will be the last vote of the
evening. The Senate will not be in session on Friday. We will reconvene
on Monday and begin consideration of the Homeland Security
appropriations bill.
As I previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes on Monday,
although we hope Members will be prepared to give opening statements
and offer amendments during Monday's debate.
The next votes will occur on Tuesday. We will alert all Senators as
to the timing of those votes when they are scheduled. I will have more
to say on the schedule when we close the evening.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following final passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk has read the bill for the third time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Graham (FL)
Hutchison
Kerry
Lieberman
Miller
The bill (H.R. 2658), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendments and requests a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
START OF CORRECTION.
The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg,
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid of Nevada, and Mrs.
Feinstein conferees on the part of the Senate.
END OF CORRECTION.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment NO. 1300
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was inadvertently off the floor when the
manager of the bill offered a managers' amendment that dealt with
providing certain reparations to former U.S. servicemen who were held
captive in Japan during World War II and were used as slave laborers in
Japanese companies during the duration of the war.
Had I been on the floor at the time that amendment came up, I would
have spoken about it and might have taken exception to its inclusion. I
would have done so not because I do not think the former slave laborers
of Japan deserve compensation, but it is coming from the wrong source.
Two years ago, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire and I offered an
amendment that basically would have stopped the State Department and
the Department of Justice from using taxpayer dollars to defend the
interests of Japanese companies. That passed 58 to 34 in the Senate.
The House passed the identical amendment in July in an overwhelming 393
to 33 vote, same provision, both Chambers. Incredibly, it was stripped
out of conference.
Since then, the State Department has been wielding its influence on
behalf of these Japanese companies, not the World War II POWs. I think
this is unconscionable. The provision added tonight, basically, as I
understand it, would give up to $10,000 to each former POW slave
laborer, but that money comes from the taxpayers of America. Senator
Smith and I said that money ought to come from the Japanese companies
that are still in existence. Some of them are multinational, some of
them huge, such as Mitsubishi, that actually used American slave
laborers during World War II. Many of these
[[Page S9573]]
POWs were packed into cargo holds from the Philippines.
Four thousand American servicemen lost their lives during the Bataan
death march. Those who survived were shipped off to Japan for more than
3 years to serve as slave labor for private Japanese companies.
Throughout the war, Americans worked in mines, factories, shipyards,
and steel mills, labored each day for as long as 10 hours a day in
dangerous working conditions. They were beaten on a regular basis.
Frank Exline of Pleasant Hill, IA, was one of those POWs, a Navy
seaman, who was captured April 9, 1942.
Frank Smith worked 39 months for Japanese companies in Osaka, Japan.
He began on the docks unloading rock salt and keg iron and later found
himself toiling in the rice fields. He was fed two rice balls a day and
given very little water. During his time with the Japanese companies,
he was tortured and beaten once for taking a potato. Upon being caught,
the potato was shoved in his mouth and he stood at rigid attention, in
the Sun, for 45 minutes. If he moved or blinked, he was beaten.
There was Frank Cardamon, of Des Moines, a marine stationed in China.
His ship was attacked, and he was captured at Corregidor and sent to
Japan to work in an auto parts factory and in the mines and was never
paid for his work. He was fed two cups of rice a day. He went from 160
pounds to 68 pounds in 3 years of capture.
Margaret Baker, of Oelwein, IA, wrote a letter about her late
husband, Charles Baker. Charles Baker, an Army private, survived the
Bataan death march. He was sent to work in the mines for 3 years in
Japan. He died at age 54 in 1973.
In her letter she wrote: He suffered many injuries and hunger on the
death march and during his imprisonment. We feel his early death was
caused by the suffering he endured while working long hours in the
mines without food, rest, and clothing.
These men and 700 of their fellow prisoners of war and their families
have been trying to seek long-delayed justice over the past several
years. They have been to court to demand compensation from the Japanese
companies that used POW slave labor. Yet our own State Department has
come down on the side of the Japanese companies, not our POWs. The
State Department took the view that a peace treaty signed in 1951
prohibits reparations from private Japanese companies for survivors
such as Frank. In fact, State Department officials have submitted
statements to the court in support of the view of these Japanese
companies.
Imagine our own State Department coming down on the side of the
Japanese companies, not the side of our POWs. I don't think that is
right and I don't think it is fair, especially when the State
Department's assertion about the treaty is inaccurate.
The State Department says the treaty signed in 1951 in San Francisco,
article 14(b), exempts Japanese companies from these kinds of lawsuits.
I will read the entire article 14(b):
Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the
Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied
Power, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals
arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals in
the course of the prosecution of the War. . . .
It says ``except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty.'' Well,
the present treaty provides in article 26:
Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims
settlement with any State granting that State greater
advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those
same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the
present Treaty.
What does that mean? It means article 14 says that U.S. citizens,
such as Frank Exline, could not sue Mitsubishi for reparations. But
article 26 says if Japan were to conclude a different agreement or
arrangement with another country that is more advantageous to the
nationals of that country, those same advantages apply to all the
signatories of the treaty.
Guess what. We didn't know this until the year 2000 when certain
documents were declassified; we did not find out that Japan had
concluded a separate treaty with the Netherlands, giving the
Netherlands' national citizens the right to go to court to seek
reparations. Under article 26, since the Netherlands got greater
advantages than those under article 14, article 26 should be extended
to those in the present treaty, including the United States.
The State Department ignores this. I guess they do not want to upset
Mitsubishi or some of the other large corporations in Japan. They have
continued to intervene in court. The courts have come down on the side
of the Japanese companies.
The amendment Senator Smith and I offered 2 years ago and adopted by
the Senate and the House basically said the State Department and the
Department of Justice cannot intervene in these cases anymore. They
cannot use the taxpayers' money to intervene in these cases. That
amendment was stripped from the conference report, I guess by the
urging of the State Department.
This is why I am upset and stayed at this late hour to talk and why I
will talk about it more. I did not know until yesterday that this
provision was going to be slipped into the Defense appropriations bill.
Otherwise, I would have been prepared with amendments of my own,
amendments that this Senate adopted 2 years ago.
It is not right. First, it was not right for Japan and these private
companies to use United States POWs as slave laborers. There is a book
that describes the torture and what they went through working for
private companies as slave laborers. It is not right they were treated
that way.
Second, it was not right that the United States concluded a treaty
that said you can never seek compensation from these companies. That is
the treaty we concluded in 1951. But there was an escape clause that
said if Japan concluded a treaty with another country more advantageous
to that country, then those same rights would accrue to our
citizens. But that was kept under seal from 1951 until the year 2000.
Then we found out that article 26 applied and that our former POWs,
used as slave laborers, should have the right to go to court to seek
compensation.
I am not saying they would have gotten it. At least they could have
gone to court to press their rights, to exercise their rights to seek
compensation.
What the amendment tonight did is it said now American taxpayers are
going to pay them, American tax payers are now going to pay $10,000 to
each of these former POWs who are dying every day because of old age
and infirmities. Why should the American taxpayer pay them?
These Japanese companies have a lot of money. A lot of the money they
have was made on the backs of slave laborers during World War II, and
these companies still exist today. That is why I found the inclusion of
this amendment so offensive. It is a slap in the face to these former
POWs, these slave laborers, saying: We are going to give you $10,000;
now shut up.
I understand there was a previous amendment that would have given
$30,000 or $20,000 to the widows. That was taken away. I understand it
is only $10,000 now. Not only is that a slap in the face, but it is a
slap in the face to the U.S. taxpayer, that somehow our taxpayers have
to pay for what these Japanese companies did during World War II.
So this is not the last I will have to say about this. I will seek
other avenues and other venues, bills coming across the floor of the
Senate, to make sure our POWs have the right to seek compensation from
these private companies. If the Dutch could get it done, if they had
the right to do it, then our American citizens ought to have that same
right under article 26 of the treaty of 1951. So while this amendment
may have been adopted, I will seek other avenues, as I said, later on.
And I will ask for record votes on it because Senators voted on it 2
years ago and House Members voted on it 2 years ago overwhelmingly.
Maybe it is time to express, again, our displeasure at the State
Department for what they have been doing, for interfering with the
rights of our citizens to seek redress in our courts.
With that, again, I put the Senate on notice that this amendment will
be coming down the pike whenever I find the first opportunity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tonight the United States Senate accepted
an amendment that I wrote with the distinguished senior Senator from
West
[[Page S9574]]
Virginia, Mr. Byrd, to require accountability and independent oversight
on the ``contracts for reconstruction and other services in Iraq that
are funded in whole or in part with funds that are made available by
the Department of Defense.''
This requirement is long overdue.
Too much money is moving right now out of public coffers into private
hands without adequate assurance that those hands have won the
contracts fairly. Suffice it to say, the sums of money involved are
staggering. The latest issue of Newsweek magazine says:
$1 billion a week, and that's the lowside. So much for
``self-sustaining'' reconstruction.
The head of Iraq's State oil marketing organization thinks ``the
United States is dreaming if it believes it will be able to finance the
reconstruction with oil money alone.''
I was particularly troubled several weeks ago because, in the New
York Times magazine, there was a feature length article describing the
letting of a multibillion-dollar oil field contract to Kellogg, Brown
and Root. That contract was sole source, meaning that Kellogg, Brown
won it without having to compete at all. But now it appears that
Kellogg, Brown and Root actually developed the Army's plan for the oil
field restoration effort, and then was awarded the contract to carry
out the plan, almost automatically.
I think it is important to be clear. This process essentially allowed
an incumbent contractor to identify the criteria for a multibillion-
dollar contract and virtually ensured that it would be awarded the
contract without competition. The inside track doesn't peter out there.
Under the auspices of an even larger, incredibly lucrative contract
with the Army, Kellogg, Brown seems to have written the Army's so-
called contingency plan for rebuilding Iraq. If the news reports are
correct, then the potential for sole-source custom-crafted contracts is
practically guaranteed by Kellogg, Brown's agreement.
The Department of Defense recently announced that it is going to go
back and solicit bidding for the oil field contracts. So, in a sense,
that ends the original controversy, the original contract that I was so
concerned about with Kellogg, Brown and Root. But the American people
deserve to know whether, in reletting this contract, the Department of
Defense has finally acknowledged a problem with the original agreement
and the contract processes that are being used today. The American
people deserve to know whether the Department of Defense, on a regular
basis, is letting other contracts to other companies in this fashion.
The American people deserve to know whether the Department of Defense
intends to continue this practice where it has not yet been discovered.
If individual contractors are customarily setting the criteria for
the work they plan to pursue, it seems to me there are serious
conflict-of-interest issues that the Department of Defense should be
working immediately to root out.
When you consider the Kellogg, Brown and Root contracts are so-called
cost-plus contracts, this arrangement becomes even more unacceptable.
Cost-plus lets companies spend what they think is necessary, and after
that they get to tack on a percentage fee to make a profit. The more
taxpayer dollars the company spends, the more profit they bring home.
In effect, these contracts send out a message that the Treasury is
open. If you are wasteful and inefficient, don't sweat it because the
taxpayer is just going to pick up the bills.
A number of Iraqi reconstruction contracts, not just the Kellogg,
Brown contract, have been designed in this way. If the Defense
Department is going to spend my constituents' money in this manner
without asking for a competitive bid, my constituents deserve to know
why.
I have just been having community, townhall meetings in a number of
our small, rural communities. I was recently in Gold Beach, OR, at a
townhall meeting. Folks there were talking about the difficulty they
face getting money for dredging, which is critically important. It is
the lifeblood of these small, rural communities on the Oregon coast.
They have to battle for every dime in order to get the funds for
dredging. I can tell you my constituents in Gold Beach, Coos Bay,
Pendleton, and Portland--across the State of Oregon--are saying there
is no place for waste. With respect to these Iraqi reconstruction
contracts and various other contracts with Iraq, they want to make sure
that not only is there no waste, but there should not be any
possibility for impropriety.
I understand that in some cases, there may be valid reasons for the
awarding of contracts that seem suspect to the untrained eye. One
explanation I have heard repeatedly is the need to award some contracts
quickly. Another is the need for security clearances. But I cannot
imagine that the need to move quickly is a valid justification for
ignoring experience as a criterion, nor does a security clearance seem
necessary for rebuilding a sewer system.
As a Member of the Intelligence Committee, I had thought these
arguments were pretty shaky before. I said then, and I will repeat it
tonight. I believe the Department of Defense and other agencies
involved in reconstruction would have a more open process and greater
credibility if they knew they had to face the public on these important
issues.
The fact is: The Pentagon has kept the American taxpayer in the dark.
The American people at present do not know how the select group of
contractors was chosen, how much the reconstruction of Iraq will cost
or how long it will take.
Tonight, with the adoption of the legislation authored with Senator
Byrd, we are going to be in a position to finally get on top of those
issues.
I want to express my appreciation to a number of the Senators on the
Appropriations Committee, particularly Senator Stevens, the
distinguished chairman of the full committee, and Senator Byrd, the
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and the
distinguished subcommittee chair of that committee, for working closely
with me and my colleagues on this legislation.
Recently, the New York Times reported the current supply of about $7
billion for rebuilding Iraq includes $1.7 billion for Iraqi assets
frozen in U.S. banks, $900 million found hiding in Iraq, and about $1.6
billion from Iraqi oil sold before the war. The United Nations is
holding about $1 billion for development, and Congress has already
appropriated $2.4 billion for reconstruction contracts. The occupation
administrator is reportedly seeking about $6 billion for the remainder
of this year, and ``the amount for 2004 will be considerably higher.''
Independent sources familiar with Iraq have put the price tag at
upwards of $100 billion.
The Pentagon just last week informed Congress that the monthly cost
of military operations is really twice what they predicted in April, or
nearly $4 billion. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called this a ``burn
rate'' of $1 billion a week. My question then becomes, Will the
administration have to effect a similar doubling of the projected
reconstruction costs? What sort of a ``burn rate'' can the American
people expect on the reconstruction side of the ledger?
We have seen the costs go up and up with respect to military
operations. Suffice it to say, I think there is every reason to believe
that will be the case with respect to reconstruction contracts as well.
What Senator Byrd and I have said--and we are very pleased the Senate
on a bipartisan basis has accepted our amendment--is it is time for
some accountability, and it is time for real and independent oversight
with respect to these contracts.
What is needed are clear processes and standards for designing and
awarding contracts. What is needed are clear criteria for justifying
sole-source contracts. What is needed are mechanisms to provide
independent oversight over contractors. What is needed are policies to
prevent conflicts of interest. What is needed are policies to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse. What is needed are ways to assure the
percentage of profits is determined for cost-fixed-fee contracts in a
way that protects our taxpayers. Finally, what is needed is a list of
all contracts for reconstruction and other services in Iraq and their
overall expected costs and duration.
This week the civil administrator Paul Bremer said that just over the
next 6 months Iraqi oil revenues will be $2 billion short of what will
be needed to finance occupation and reconstruction. He admitted that
reconstruction
[[Page S9575]]
of Iraq is ``not going to be self-financing.'' Newsweek magazine called
these numbers ``misleading.''
What this means, in plain English, is that U.S. taxpayers are going
to get stuck funding the difference for a number of months and for the
foreseeable future.
We believe the pattern of secretive and closed bidding for these
construction contracts is unacceptable. It seems to me the American
people have a right to hear if there are reasons for sole-source and
invitation-only contracts for these projects. If something is amiss in
the Iraqi reconstruction contracting process, then the oversight and
the accountability--as Senator Byrd and I have called for in the
legislation accepted tonight--is going to bring that to light. It is
high time Congress and the American people arrive at fair judgments
about these difficult issues with respect to funding the reconstruction
of Iraq. The American people deserve real accountability at a time when
we need the money here at home for our schools, for our health care
facilities, for our roads, and for the critical needs of strengthening
our economy.
I think it is a significant step the Senate has taken. It assures
this will now be an effort to establish true oversight and
accountability over the billions of dollars that are being spent now
and that will be spent with respect to reconstructing Iraq and other
services in that country.
I thank Senator Byrd for his patience and assistance in this
legislation.
Again, I express my appreciation to Chairman Stevens for helping us
to draft this in a way that will win bipartisan support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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 (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________