[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18498-18513]
[From the U.S. 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.
  Yesterday, 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 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.

[[Page 18499]]

       ``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 just 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 the 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 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!''

[[Page 18500]]

       ``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.


                           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.

[[Page 18501]]




                           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))).
       (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

[[Page 18502]]

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 funds the 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 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--

[[Page 18503]]

       (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.

[[Page 18504]]

  We also passed S. Con. Res. 158, a resolution at the end of the 106th 
Congress 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

[[Page 18505]]

     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 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.

[[Page 18506]]




                           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 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.

[[Page 18507]]




                           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.
  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

[[Page 18508]]

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.
  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.


                           sail san francisco

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to express my support for Sail San 
Francisco, a nonprofit organization that provides a range of services 
to visiting international tall ships and training ships.
  These services, which include docking, technical assistance and 
hospitality, were formerly provided by the U.S. Navy in the Bay Area. 
In the wake of the base closure process, this assistance is no longer 
available. Over the past several months, Sail San Francisco has 
coordinated with foreign consulates to facilitate the visit of several

[[Page 18509]]

foreign navies, playing a valuable role that is filled by the U.S. Navy 
at other ports throughout the country.
  It is my hope that when the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations 
bill is considered in conference, it is possible to provide $800,000 
for Sail Francisco's naval/tall ships education programs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Defense 
Appropriations subcommittee, I would like to join my colleague and 
friend, Senator Boxer, in support of this request. It is important that 
we assist in these naval and diplomatic educational and training 
programs that have been continued through the work of Sail San 
Francisco.
  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 
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

[[Page 18510]]

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 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?

[[Page 18511]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER appoints 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.
  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 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

[[Page 18512]]

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 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

[[Page 18513]]

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 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.

                          ____________________