A bill to direct the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit semi-annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and fraud against the Federal Government.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Enzi, Lincoln, Baucus, Smith, Harkin, Domenici, Johnson, Nelson of Nebraska, and Dayton entitled the ``Medicaid Safety Net Improvement Act of 2003.'' This legislation is important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's safety

net hospitals that provide critical health care access to our Nation's 41.2 million uninsured citizens, including 373,000 in New Mexico, through the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program.

In recognition of the burden certain hospitals bear in providing a large share of health services to the low-income patients, including Medicaid and the uninsured, the Congress established the Medicaid DSH program in the mid-1980's to give additional funding to support such ``disproportionate share'' hospitals. By providing financial relief to these hospitals, the Medicaid DSH program maintains hospital access for the poor. As the National Governors' Association has said, ``Medicaid DSH's funds are an important part of statewide systems of health care access for the uninsured.''

Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Infact But Endangered,'' the National Association of Public Hospitals entitled ``The Dependence of Safety Net Hospitals'' and the Commonwealth Fund entitled ``A Shared Responsibility: Academic Health Centers and the Provision of Care to the Poor and Uninsured'' have all highlighted the importance of the Medicaid DSH program to our health care safety net.

Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth Fund report notes, ``. . . there are large inequities in how these funds are distributed among states.'' In fact, for a number of states, including New Mexico, our federal DSH allotments are not allowed to exceed 1 percent of our state's Medicaid program costs. In comparison, the average state spends around 9 percent of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This disparity and lack of Medicaid DSH in ``extremely low-DSH states'' threatens the viability of our safety net providers. In New Mexico, these funds are critical but inadequate to hospitals all across our state, including University Hospital, Eastern New Mexico Regional Hospital, Lea Regional Hospital, Plains Regional Medical Center, Memorial Medical Center, and others.

In an analysis of the Medicaid DSH program by the Urban Institute, the total amount of federal Medicaid DSH payments in six States was less than $1 per Medicaid and uninsured individual compared to five States than had DSH spending in excess of $500 per Medicaid and uninsured individual. That figure was just $14.91 per Medicaid and uninsured person in New Mexico. Compared to the average expenditure of $218.96 across the country, such disparities cannot be sustained.

As a result, this bipartisan legislation increases the allowed Federal Medicaid DSH allotment in the ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent of Medicaid program costs, which remains far less, or just about one-third, of the national average. The 18 States that would benefit from this legislation include: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I would add that the legislation does not impact the Federal DSH allotments in other States but only seeks greater equity by raising the share of Federal funds to ``extremely low-DSH States.''

Once again, the Commonwealth Fund recommends such action. As the report finds, ``States with small DSH programs are not permitted to increase the relative size of their DSH programs . . . [C]urrent policy simply rewards the programs that acted quickly and more aggressively, without regard to a State's real need of such funds.'' Therefore, the report concludes, ``. . . greater equity in the use of Federal funds should be established among States.''

Again, this is achieved in our legislation by raising the limits for ``extremely low-DSH States'' from 1 percent to 3 percent and not by redistributing or taking money away from other States.

Failure to support these critical hospitals could have a devastating impact not only on the low-income and vulnerable populations who depend on them for care but also on other providers throughout the communities that rely on the safety net to care for patients whom they are unable or unwilling to serve.

As the Institute of Medicine's report entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered'' states, ``Until the nation addresses the underlying problems that make the health care safety net system necessary, it is essential that national, State, and local policy makers protect and perhaps enhance the ability of these institutions and providers to carry out their missions.''

I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, for their recognition of this problem and inclusion of this language in several bills they introduced in the last Congress, S. 3018, ``Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002'' and S. 2873, ``Improving Our Well-Being Act of 2002.''

Our Nation's governors remain very concerned as well. In a letter written to Senators Baucus and Grassley on October 23, 2002, the governors of the States of Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah, Wisconsin, and Minnesota wrote, ``Our 15, which is now 18, States are in distress and cannot wait another year for some measure of relief. We strongly urge you to use any vehicle available to include the low-DSH issue. The States are seeking to raise the cap implemented two years ago from 1 percent to 3 percent to provide them some flexibility in addressing the increasing strain facing our safety net hospitals.''

The governors add, ``The survival of many community hospitals, the lifeline for many rural community's health care and economy in our States, are being threatened. Current disparities in DSH funding severely harm our States' most vulnerable safety net hospitals.''

At a time of growing numbers of uninsured and increased financial strain on our Nation's safety net, we need to increase the ability of ``extremely low-DSH States'' to address the problems facing their safety net and to reduce the current inequity in funding among the States.

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

Mr. President, I want to convey to my colleagues my opposition to this amendment. During the markup of the foreign operations bill by the full Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment to restore full International Military Education and Training to Indonesia. I believe full participation in this important program is essential to maintain our partnership with Indonesia in our global fight against terrorism. The restriction on the participation of Indonesia proposed by my colleague from Wisconsin will harm our relationship and impede our fight against terrorism in one of the front-line countries of this fight. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The Feingold amendment will send a message to the Indonesians that although we ask for their cooperation in our fight against international terrorism, we will not provide them with the training and tools necessary for that fight and view their country as not worthy of full participation in our international assistance programs. I do not believe this is the message we want to send to one of our critical allies. It is in our national interest to have a stable and democratic Indonesia and that their military is accountable and professional. We can work toward these goals through the participation of Indonesia's military in our IMET program.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the statement I made when I offered my amendment before the Appropriations Committee be printed in the Record.

The statement follows.

Introduction of the Amendment to Restore IMET to Indonesia

Mr. Chairman, together with my colleagues the senior

Senators from Alaska, Kentucky, and Missouri, I offer an

amendment to restore full International Military Education

and Training (IMET) program participation to Indonesia.

In April, Senators Stevens and I traveled to Asia. We

visited Indonesia where they had just brought into custody a

Muslim cleric who was quoted as having said, ``Osama bin

Laden is a lightweight.'' Indonesia has the world's largest

Muslim population and has only recently embraced democratic

principles. We must engage and support this fledgling

democracy by supporting reform of the military and helping to

build capacity to control and support modern, professional

armed forces. We believe that full access to IMET programs

will foster the necessary changes.

We also believe that the continued restriction on IMET

program participation of Indonesia sends a message to the

Indonesians. It is a message that they are second class

international citizens, unworthy of full participation in our

international assistance programs. Is this the message we

want to send?

I appreciate that this bill provides $400,000 for Expanded

(IMET (E-IMET) programs in Indonesia. However, the training

provided under E-IMER focuses on administration of the armed

forces and the dissemination of international human rights

information through the use of Mobile Education Teams that

are sent in country. The E-IMET program does provide valuable

skills in defense resource management and military justice,

but Indonesia needs to focus on professionalizing the

military. This can only be accomplished through our

assistance via the full IMET program.

I IMET program training is provided to all levels of the

military, from generals to enlisted personnel. This training,

much of which is provided in the United States, builds

invaluable connections between the United States and foreign

nations that provide long-term benefits. The Department of

Defense conducts a variety of activities for foreign military

and civilian officials. Formal instruction is offered

involving more than 2,000 courses taught at approximately 150

military schools and installations. The program is based upon

the premise that active promoting of democratic values is one

of the most effective means available for achieving U.S.

national security and foreign policy objectives and for

fostering peaceful relationships among the nations of the

world.

I understand that Senator Leahy views IMET as a reward and

does not believe it should be afforded to the TNI in light of

past abuses and failure to achieve the accountability

benchmarks set in last year's Foreign Operations

Appropriations bill. This is not a reward. IMET is a vehicle

to help TNI achieve those benchmarks. Indonesia has made some

progress toward meeting the Leahy conditions, but without

recognition of and response to what has been accomplished to

date, we will only bolster the arguments of those in

Indonesia opposed to reform who believe it is worthless to

try to please the United States since we are unwilling to

recognize their progress.

There are few countries in the world with democratic

governments where the rule of law is as firmly established as

in the United States. That cannot be our litmus test for

provision of assistance. Providing the requested assistance

to Indonesia would not be an exception to a well-established

rule. Our nation assists countries that are obviously not

democracies. Why do we do this? Because, it is in our

national interest. Were we helping a democracy when we

embarked on Operation Dessert Storm and put up our fortune

and our most precious resource, the lives of our soldiers?

No, we were not, but we were acting in our national interest.

It is in our national interest to have a stable and

democratic Indonesia. It is in our national interest that

Indonesia develops internal capabilities to address

international terrorism. It is in our national interest that

Indonesia's military is professional and accountable. We can

work toward these goals through the participation of

Indonesia's military in our IMET program.

Please be assured that I do not advocate lifting the

prohibition on the participation of Indonesia in the Foreign

Military Financing program. I believe a strong professional

and accountable TNI must be established before Indonesia's

participation in that program is renewed. However, I believe

participation in the full IMET program is vital to reaching

that goal, and I ask my colleagues to support this

amendment.

Mr. President, with much reservation, I rise today in support of the Feingold amendment. On

August 31, 2002 several Americans in West Papua--Indonesia were brutally attacked by heavily armed assailants. Two Americans--Rick Spier and Ted Burgon--were murdered during the 35 minute ambush and many others were seriously wounded.

Last week, I met with Rick Spier's wife, Mrs. Patsy Spier, who was also shot three times during the attack. She described with much emotion the circumstances of the attack and the horrific result. I was saddened by her loss and angered by the Indonesian Government's failure to bring the perpetrators to justice. Following my meeting with Mrs. Spier, I contacted the Department of States and later received a detailed briefing from Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Daley. I also contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and expressed my interest in meeting the agents charged with investigation this case upon their return from Indonesia.

Following these meetings, I wrote to President Bush to express my strong views about this matter. I urged the President to press the Indonesian Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack. I further wrote that if the Indonesian Government fails to act, a severe diplomatic response, including the suspension of funding for the International Military Education Training Program for Indonesia, should be considered. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks my letter of January 16 to President Bush.

I am pleased that Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has included strong report language on Indonesia. As I noted in a colloquy with Senator McConnell, the references in the report language to the Americans murdered in West Papua and the demands that justice be served for these crimes were warranted and much appreciated.

The amendment before us would limit Indonesian military personnel to participation in the IMET program only, absent a presidential determination that the Indonesian government and armed forces are ``demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to combat international terrorism'' and ``taking effective measures, including cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to bring to justice any member of the Indonesian Armed Forces or Indonesian militia'' whom might be involved in the August 31 killings.

I understand that the Department of State opposes this amendment, which it believes would damage important U.S. foreign policy interest in Indonesia. In a letter sent to Senator McConnell, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly wrote:

. . . the President has directed that we [the Department of

State] emphasize to the Government of Indonesia that there

must be a credible investigation and process of justice to

avoid damage in our entire bilateral relationship.

He further wrote:

In response to our repeated demarches, the Indonesian

government has agreed to a new investigation of this crime to

include FBI participation. FBI agents will arrive in

Indonesia on January 22 to explore the terms of their

participation in the investigation.

While I applaud the administration for its involvement in this issue and am encouraged by Indonesia Government's agreement to conduct a new investigation, I strongly believe that the murder of innocent Americans is unacceptable and demands serious action on our part. We cannot be seen as rewarding the Indonesian government for covering up the killing of Americans. Such an action would set a frightful precedent and give other nations the impression that the murder of Americans would not warrant a serious response on the part of the United States. Clearly, the IMET funding in this bill sends the wrong signal at the wrong time. Therefore, despite serious reservations, I will vote in support of the Feingold amendment.

Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I will continue to monitor this situation very closely, and should the Indonesian Government conduct a full and fair investigation, I will consider supporting new funding for Indonesia in the future.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President, the White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: I am writing to express my growing

concern about the lagging investigation into the August 31,

2002 attack on several Americans in West Papau, Indonesia.

Three people were killed, including two Americans, during the

attack, and eight others were seriously wounded.

As you may know, the Indonesian police completed its

preliminary investigation last fall and concluded that the

Indonesian military may have been responsible for the attack.

Despite being informed of the results of the police

investigation, the Indonesian military has failed to look

into this matter. In fact, press reports suggest that the

Indonesian military may have exonerated itself of any

responsibility.

I understand that senior officials at the Department of

State have expressed the concerns of your Administration

about the dogged pace of the investigation to the Indonesian

government. Your effort to determine who was responsible for

this brutal attack is commendable. However, more must be

done.

I urge you to press the Indonesian government to conduct a

comprehensive investigation into the attack. Such an

investigation should include active and meaningful

participation by United States law enforcement agencies who

should have complete access to evidence and witnesses.

The murder of innocent Americans overseas warrants a

serious response on our part. If the Indonesian government

fails to act, severe diplomatic actions, including the

suspension of IMET funding for Indonesia, should be

considered. We cannot afford to overlook further delays in

this important investigation.

Again, thank you for your efforts, and I look forward to

your response.

Sincerely,

Wayne Allard,

U.S. Senator.

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

Mr. President, in the interest of fairness, although I do agree with my friend from Missouri, I ask unanimous consent that the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Feingold, have 5 minutes when he appears.

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

I see Senator Feingold is on the floor. I did make arrangements for Senator Feingold to have an extra 5 minutes, and I call that to his attention. Senator Bond has just spoken on the Feingold amendment. There are 5 minutes for Senator Feingold to speak, if he wishes to do so.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I agree we should set this order. We are still working on it. We hope we will have a chance to have an amendment on one side and then the other. I will come later and try to intersperse these with amendments from our side of the aisle when they are identified.

Mr. President, I will have to reserve, I think, on one or more of those. There may be a second-degree amendment. I don't have any problem with the order, but I will come back.

That is fair. We will set the order and agree on the time; and if there is an amendment, if there is any identified, at the present time, Senators are willing to set the order with that understanding.

Yes.

Very well, I don't have any problem with that. But I do want to reserve the right to schedule amendments from this side in between if Senators wish to offer amendments in this period of time.

For the information of Senators, as I indicated last evening, we will have a series of amendments that we will offer in small groupings very soon. I believe we will have some amendments identified on our side of the aisle as soon as this first vote will begin. It is my understanding that the vote on Senator Feingold's amendment will commence at 11.

Is the Senator ready to start now?

That was my request.

We ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next vote be 10 minutes in length.

I ask unanimous consent time for the vote on the Mikulski amendment be limited to 10 minutes.

I have no objection.

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

Mr. President, the next amendment in order is Senator Murray's amendment. There is a minute on each side, if the Senator wishes to use it. I wish to state now we will accept this amendment and it will be included in the across-the-board cut as an offset. Because of an amendment that was adopted yesterday, we now have leeway in that ceiling that we self-imposed, and we can take the amendment of the Senator from Washington. I believe her amendment has the approval of the House also. Many of us want to vote for it. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Let her offer it, please.

I understand the Senator from Rhode Island has a colloquy?

May I announce there will be no votes for a little while now. We have worked out we will have another series in a few minutes. Right now we would like to have the colloquy out of the way.

I urge we adopt the Murray amendment.

I inquire how much time the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from West Virginia wish for their colloquy?

Ten minutes total?

I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for not to exceed 10 minutes total.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Kennedy amendment be 30 minutes equally divided.

My request was that the time on the Kennedy amendment be 30 minutes equally divided.

I also ask unanimous consent that the time on any amendment be limited to 30 minutes unless specifically requested otherwise by myself or the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. President, I renew that request.

The unanimous consent request is that the time on any amendment be limited to 30 minutes unless specifically requested otherwise by myself or the minority whip.

I can't agree on the Cantwell amendment. We can agree on the others.

Mr. President, this is an important program. As a matter of fact, the amendment I have offered provides $130 million more than the minority bill in the last Congress for these same programs. In addition, the amendment I have offered, the omnibus amendment, provides over $3.1 billion for minority health, education, and training initiatives which was not in the bill that was prepared in the last Congress when the leadership was on the other side of the aisle.

This $3.1 billion is an increase of $144.3 million over the level of fiscal year 2002, which is the operating level now.

Has the Senator's time expired?

Would the Senator consider reserving his 2 minutes and have 2 minutes reserved on this side, and let's put this off? I know many people have left the building now for lunch. I would like to see this vote started at 1:15. At that time the Senator would have 2 minutes, and I would have 2 minutes before that vote. Is the Senator agreeable to that?

It would be my hope, I say to the distinguished Democratic whip, that we would have a series of amendments stacked and start the votes at 1:15. A series of tabling motions, as a matter of fact, would occur at 1:15.

I don't have any objection to that. I think the third one will end when I make the motion to table.

Two McCains.

Clinton and two McCains, and we will have the vote take place at the end of the last of those.

Is that agreeable with the Senator from Massachusetts?

I have not yet made the motion to table because we have 2 minutes on a side. I will make it later. Is Senator Clinton prepared to proceed now?

We will put off the McCain amendment until the Senator has offered the amendment.

Amendment No. 89

(Purpose: To improve health care under the medicare and medicaid

programs)

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator entertain a time agreement now?

All right. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Feingold amendment. The Feingold amendment, as my colleagues probably know, deals with Indonesia and makes not too subtle suggestions about evil doings and suggests that we can only work with them in certain circumstances. As one who has traveled frequently to that region, I am very much disturbed by the intent and the apparent direction of this amendment.

It is very clear to the Government of Indonesia and its people that there is a legitimate terrorism threat in that country today. The tragic bombing in Bali, a major international tourist destination and the source of essential revenue in the country, brought the reality of terrorism squarely on the heads of the Indonesian Government. This is a country which, if superimposed geographically on the United States, would extend from San Francisco to Bermuda. It is the fourth largest country in the world, with the largest Muslim population in the world. It is also, unfortunately, home to many elements of al-Qaida and Jamaah Islamiyah, another Islamic terrorist group.

The tragic bombing in Bali, with almost 300 people killed, has brought home to that country the real threat of terrorism, and they are taking that threat seriously.

I have talked with our resources in the area, our embassies. I have talked with neighboring countries that are very much concerned about the future of Indonesia. We believe they are performing a credible and thorough investigation of the bombing. Arrests have been made. But the investigation continues and the Government is committed to arresting all those involved.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation. Many of its citizens, regrettably, hear continually from extreme elements within the country that the United States is targeting Muslims and is anti-Islam. This creates a very difficult political climate for the country's moderate Muslim President. She is one who has visited this country. I have met with her on a number of occasions, and I know she understands the importance of our relationship and the importance of their efforts against terrorism.

The country is making an effort now to investigate the terrorists who committed the bombing, to control the terrorism problem, and to strengthen the military.

I ask, Is this the best we can offer in the Senate to encourage cooperation between the two countries, to pursue a warmed-over agenda, to embarrass the military because some activist groups are not satisfied with the results of the tribunals that investigated the outrages in East Timor?

This is a time when we in the United States have to be serious about our relationship with moderate Muslim nations. We need to support the people within these countries who are resisting the extremists. It is a tremendous challenge for them to stand up to extreme voices. We should be supportive. We ought not to be sticking a finger in their eye. We ought not to be gratuitously slapping them in the face.

In the case of Indonesia, we should encourage strengthening those institutions which the Government will rely on to investigate terrorism, apprehend terrorists, and prevent further attacks. In Indonesia, the only institution with that capacity is the military.

I have talked with our Secretary of State and our Secretary of Defense, and I have asked them what we can do to improve our relations with Indonesia to assure they have the strength to resist terrorism and to provide their share of the role in the international battle against terrorism.

What they have said, quite frankly, to bipartisan groups in front of them is to stop congressional interference and slurs on the Indonesia military. Unfortunately, rather than moving in a sensible direction to encourage military-to-military contact, to take actions to raise the standards of their military to levels we are comfortable with and to promote relationships between officers, we would, by adopting this measure, pursue a course that insults the people, strains relations, and will aid the extremist elements in their efforts to demonize the United States.

This may be presented as a harmless amendment, one that can be satisfied easily by us and the Indonesians, but those people are our friends. Our allies in Southeast Asia take note of what we do; they hear our message. What we pass is loud, and it is clear; it resonates. It is not only a bad idea, it is dangerous.

We need to stand up and support our friends, especially in these challenging times. As I have met with friendly nations in Southeast Asia, they have been dumbfounded that we continue to insult, denigrate, and downgrade Indonesia. We should be supporting them.

This amendment is not grounded in legitimate policy concerns but, rather, in an ongoing interest by some to refight the East Timor battle year in and year out, despite the fact that East Timor is now an independent country. It is hollow all the way through.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in defeating this amendment, to send the message that we will support moderate Islam countries, struggling democracies trying to fight terrorism.

I thank the managers and yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I am not speaking on the time on this side. I ask my colleague from Wisconsin if he has visited the area, if he has talked with our officials in the region, if he has talked with the people in governments who support us and who support Indonesia. Has he had the opportunity to find out what the impact of this amendment would be?

My understanding is that I am to be allotted 5 minutes in response to Senator Bond's comments on my amendment.

I thank the Chair and I thank the managers for their fairness in light of the fact that we were going to have a minute on each side. I appreciate the understanding that I do want to respond to Senator Bond's remarks.

Senator Bond apparently has not actually read what my amendment does with regard to the Indonesian military and the IMET Program. Obviously, there is a terrorism threat in Indonesia today, as Senator Bond indicated. That is one of the conditions this amendment is all about. It is about making sure that Indonesia cooperates with us in fighting terrorist attacks, such as the ones that were so awfully perpetrated on the people in Bali.

What is even more troubling about Senator Bond's remarks is that he doesn't even mention the fact that apparently the Indonesian military was involved in an incident in Papua which killed American citizens.

Are we only going to be upset when American citizens are killed in Yemen and Kuwait or are we going to respond and expect standards of help and behavior from countries when our citizens are killed in a place such as Indonesia?

All this amendment does is try to make sure, as we continue our relationship with Indonesia--yes, a fledgling democracy--that we actually have accountability of that Indonesian military with which we would be involved. I am very troubled when we see the failure of cooperation with the FBI's reasonable request to deal with this awful murder of our citizens. We need a message to be sent clearly to the Indonesian Government, and in particular to the Indonesian military, that as the FBI returns to try to do this investigation again, we will get cooperation.

The whole point here is not that we are trying to cut off military help and assistance; it is that there have to be two preconditions to make sure it is a legitimate enterprise in which to be involved. One is that the Indonesian Government and military has to help us in dealing with terrorism; secondly, they need to help us get to the bottom of this awful massacre that occurred.

If Senators don't believe me, I refer them to the letter of Patricia Lynn Spier of Colorado, whose husband was brutally murdered in this incident. Ask her and the other families whether they think it is appropriate for the Indonesian military to investigate itself with regard to this incident or whether they should cooperate with the FBI.

Despite the attempt to distort what this amendment is about, my amendment is simple. Until the President determines that Indonesia is committed to fighting terrorism and committed to cooperating and investigating the murder of American citizens, my amendment would deny Indonesia access to IMET, though it would--I emphasize this to the Senator from Missouri--permit access to expanded IMET courses that are relevant to military reforms. So, yes, we want to promote a good relationship with the military in Indonesia, if these preconditions are met. We are going to continue counter-terrorism training, expanded IMET sales of nonlethal defense articles, officer visits, educational exchanges, and port visits. We are not cutting off these items.

I have the floor, Mr. President.

Let's be clear, because the Senator from Missouri did not mention this. Last August, two Americans were killed and eight were wounded in an ambush in West Papua, Indonesia. Indonesia's police investigated, and their report concluded that the Indonesian military was very likely responsible for the deaths of these Americans. When the investigation was turned over to the Indonesian military, it exonerated itself and it failed to fully cooperate not only with the Indonesian authorities but with our own FBI.

Some may say this amendment cuts off ties to the Indonesian military

when we need a strong coalition to fight terrorism. But nothing in my amendment will prohibit important national security programs, including counterterrorism training. Why would we hesitate? Why would we hesitate to condition one element--only one element--of our relationship with the Indonesian military on a demand that we simply get to the bottom of this incident? Real partners in the fight against terrorism do not murder American citizens and do not conspire to cover up such murders.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have?

I yield to the Senator for a question.

I have had daily contact with a wide variety of individuals we are concerned with, including some the Senator mentioned. I have been involved in this issue of Indonesia and East Timor for 10 years, since I have been a Member of the Senate and a member of the Subcommittee on Asia. I think I have a right to speak on this as much as the Senator from Missouri. When it comes to the deaths of American citizens, they should be cooperating with the FBI.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about a deadly attack that occurred last August in West Papua, Indonesia, and to call on the Government of Indonesia to cooperate fully with U.S. law enforcement authorities to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

Ted Burgon of Oregon and Rick Spier of Colorado were gunned down along with an Indonesian, Bambang Riwanto. Eight Americans were injured: Nancy Burgon, Saundra Hopkins, Ken Balk, and Taia Hopkins, all of Oregon, Patsy Spier of Colorado, Francine Goodfriend of Illinois, Steven Emma of Florida, and Lynn Poston, of Washington State.

The victims, school teachers from the International School and their

families, were associated with the Freeport-McMoran mine in West Papua.

I speak to this issue because the bill before us restores funding for International Military Education and Training programs for Indonesia. Before we do that, I think we need some answers.

Mr. President, there is troubling evidence that members of the Indonesian military may have been behind the attack. It occurred less than half a mile from an Indonesian military outpost.

Hundreds of rounds were fired at the teachers and their vehicles during the ambush, which lasted 45 minutes, but the military was very slow to respond and failed to apprehend any of the assailants.

The Indonesian police promptly began an investigation. They collected evidence, interviewed witnesses, and reconstructed the ambush. The senior police official in charge said last December that there is evidence that soldiers from the army's strategic reserve force were involved in the shooting. This same senior police official also reported last November that a witness to the ambush reported seeing members of the Indonesian army's special forces participating in the attack.

The motive? The Army may have hoped to blame the murders on West Papuan rebels who have been fighting a low level insurgency for years seeking independence from Indonesia.

Bottom line: The police report on the murders concludes, quote: ``there is a strong possibility that the case was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force, however, it still needs to be investigated further.''

Well, guess what happened? After they pointed the finger at the military, the two senior police officials on the case, General Raziman and Assistant Senior Police Commissioner Sumarjiyo were mysteriously transferred, removed from all responsibility for investigating the murders.

The investigation was handed over to the Indonesian military itself! Not surprisingly, the military concluded that the armed forces had nothing to do with the killings.

Mr. President, this is the same military that denied all culpability for gross violations of human rights over 25 years in East Timor and Aceh. The same military that has armed, trained, and protected militant Islamic groups associated with grotesque, religiously motivated attacks on innocent civilians elsewhere in Indonesia.

Mr. President, it is essential that the United States secure the full support of Indonesia--a nation of 200 million people, most of them Muslims--in the war on terrorism.

Indonesia itself has been the target of terrorists, as we witnessed last year in the terrible bombing on Bali that left hundreds dead and injured, many of them Australian tourists.

It is appropriate that in the wake of 9/11, the United States has sought ways to strengthen our ties to Indonesia, including considering the resumption of normal military training for the Indonesian Army. Civilian authorities in Jakarta and some officers within the military are trying to end the culture of impunity that has prevailed for the past 30 years. I think it is in our national interests to establish appropriate links to the Indonesian armed forces to improve their professionalism, enhance intelligence sharing, and help prevent future terrorist attacks in Indonesia or elsewhere.

But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to continuing abuses by the Indonesian Army.

We will not be doing ourselves or the Indonesian people any favors if we ally ourselves with those who may themselves be responsible for criminal acts.

Before we jump to restore IMET funding for Indonesia, I hope that President Bush will give us his assurance that we are getting the full cooperation of Indonesian authorities. The FBI should have full access to all the evidence and to the witnesses to the attack. An independent investigation should be launched of the possible Indonesian military involvement.

These are American citizens we are talking about. Victims, perhaps, of a cynical effort to manipulate United States public opinion and convince our government to increase aid to the Indonesian armed forces as part of the war on terrorism. We need to get to the bottom of what happened.

I object.

I remove my objection.

What is the regular order?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The amendment is numbered 214.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, as soon as the Senator from Minnesota arrives in the Chamber, I intend to propose a time agreement so we can dispense with this amendment. I would like to consult with cosponsors before we do. I don't think this issue needs to be debated very long. But I will propose a time agreement very shortly.

I offer an amendment to a provision of a bill regarding a project to construct an outlet in Devils Lake, ND. The project is very controversial and its impact extends well beyond North Dakota into Minnesota, Missouri, and Canada. I am pleased to be joined in support of this by Senators Dayton and Coleman.

The outlet from the landlocked lake allows contaminated water to flow into neighboring waterways, causing the introduction of invasive species.

I ask unanimous consent to have letters of support be printed in the Record.

The Canadian Government is so concerned that it was a leading item in recent talks between President Bush and the Prime Minister of Canada.

The provision authorizes $5 million for construction and a total of $100 million for the Corps of Engineers to have completed their feasibility study or environmental review. In fact, the Corps has indicated they do not believe the outlet would accomplish the purpose for which it was intended.

There is a letter from the Canadian Ambassador addressed to the Honorable Bill Young, chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

In part it reads:

While Canada sympathizes with North Dakota's problems with

Devils Lake flooding, it cannot agree to a solution that

poses a genuine threat to Canadian water resources, as well

as to those of other states. There are alternative, internal

solutions available to North Dakota, including the

construction of additional flood protection works and the

pursuit of upper basin storage approaches. Canada urges that

additional funds not be provided for the Devils Lake outlet

project unless and until all of the issues it raises are

thoroughly addressed through studies repeatedly mandated by

Congress, and following meaningful consultation with Canada

under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.

From a technical standpoint, there is serious doubt that an

outlet with the proposed capacity would have any demonstrable

effect on the level of Devils Lake. After thorough review,

the Corps of Engineers announced in a June 1999 press release

its conclusion that an outlet is not the necessary or

appropriate solution, at this time, and recommended a review

of alternatives. Restoration of drained wetlands is one

possibility. As Devils Lake has no natural outlet, its high

levels may well have been exacerbated by the amount of run-

off from drained wetlands in the basin.

I have had extended conversations with both Senators from North Dakota. I do not claim to have extensive education and expertise on this issue. I think it is serious when we have these concerns by Canada and neighboring States and there is not a cost-benefit analysis.

My friends from North Dakota point out that it is under the way in which that cost-benefit analysis is conducted. With a basin such as this, that catches water and does not release water, as happens in the case of rivers, this is very difficult, if not impossible, to do. I still believe we should be able to fashion some kind of formula to find out what the cost-benefit ratio is.

I also point out that, thanks to the good efforts of the Senators from North Dakota, $350 million has been spent in the last several years, raising highways and relocating individuals who live in proximity to Devils Lake.

There are concerns raised. I think the concerns are serious. I also assured my colleagues from North Dakota that I will send my staff out to North Dakota.

I will be glad to yield.

I would like to wait, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Alaska. I understand the senior Senator from Minnesota is on his way. If you could give me about 3 or 4 minutes?

The senior Senator, as well as the junior Senator, from Minnesota, have views on this issue. I would not like to enter into a time agreement until such time as they at least are consulted. But I am sure they would be agreeable to a reasonable time limit.

I did discuss with my colleagues from North Dakota that I sent staff out to

Devils Lake to further look at this situation. I understand and appreciate their long involvement--I understand 9 years--in this issue. I would be more than willing to learn more about this issue.

At this time, I yield the floor.