Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senate amendment No. 3401 is acceptable to both the chair and ranking member. This amendment would reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, or the FIRE Act, for the next 6 years.

It is based on bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator DeWine and myself on May 11, 2004. The bill, S. 2411, currently has 39 co- sponsors, including the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As many of our colleagues know, the Senate approved by unanimous consent the original FIRE Act as part of the Defense Authorization bill 4 years ago. There is some precedent, then, for this amendment to the current Defense Authorization bill, despite the fact that the legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Unless Congress quickly reauthorizes the FIRE Act grant program, it will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2004. If this legislation is not quickly enacted, fire departments throughout the Nation will not receive the assistance they need to fight fires, save lives, and protect their own.

I have consulted with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee about the urgency of reauthorizing the FIRE Act before the fiscal year ends. He is fully aware of the fact that we have precious few legislative days left on the Senate Calendar. Accordingly, he has indicated to me his intention to hold a hearing on the reauthorization bill on July 8, with a markup to follow before the August recess.

Assuming that this schedule holds firm, my expectation is that legislation passed by the Commerce Committee would take the place of amendment No. 3401. In the event that work on the Defense Authorization Act is not completed this year, I am also prepared to move the FIRE Act reauthorization as a free-standing bill. Alternatively, should the Commerce Committee not act on this legislation, the Senate will have at least acted to reauthorize the FIRE Act adopting amendment No. 3401.

In closing, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, and his unwavering commitment over the years to advancing the cause of firefighters. I also commend Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their willingness to help the Nation's fire services on the Defense Authorization bill both today and 4 years ago. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Hollings for his wise counsel and strong support for the FIRE Act initiative.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, may I be notified when 10 minutes have expired so as to leave a few minutes at the end of the debate?

I ask unanimous consent that my distinguished friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator Levin this morning. We had a very good debate a few days ago about this amendment. At the suggestion of my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, we modified the amendment that is now before this body. The modification, very quickly, deletes the prohibition on using private contractors in combat situations. I will not belabor the point. There are existing statutes that provide for such restrictions, but the suggestion of the chairman was that that provision was going to be a rather complicated matter to deal with here, so we have taken it out--it is no longer part of the amendment. Instead, the amendment as modified would merely ask the Secretary of Defense to review and report to Congress on U.S. laws and policies as they relate to the use of contractors by the Defense Department and the Uniformed Services in combat operations.

What is still part of this amendment is the prohibition on using private contractors for the purposes of interrogation of prisoners. It would, however, give the President some flexibility in phasing in this prohibition by providing limited waiver authority for the use of such contractors in interrogations--both as translators and as actual interrogators. The presidential waiver for translators would be extended for 1 year, and for contractors acting solely as interrogators, the waiver would be effective for 90 days from the date of enactment of this legislation.

Why do I offer this amendment? I didn't bring charts or photographs to the floor of the events that occurred in Abu Ghraib prison late last fall or early this winter. Those photographs are very disturbing and can create their own sense of emotion. I am not interested in doing that today. But suffice it to say, there is ample evidence. So today we know at least that interrogations were conducted by private contractors hired by the Department of the Interior, of all agencies, to do interrogations, intelligence work in Iraq and maybe elsewhere, on Guantanamo or Afghanistan as well. The military believes, I believe, and I think most of us believe that this job of interrogation ought not be done by private contractors. This ought to be inherently a governmental function, and one that is not shopped out or outsourced, if you will, to others, where there is no accountability, no chain of command, no responsibility, and virtual immunity if they do anything wrong under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I will cite briefly memos and directives from the Department of the Army strongly urging that we not contract out this function. I strongly agree with these opinions because, first, we obviously have suffered terribly in the public relations field as a result of what happened, and we certainly know that private contracting was part of the problem; and, second, with 135,000 of our troops serving in Iraq, 20,000 serving in Afghanistan, and others serving around the globe today, we do not need to have these young men, and women in many cases, be potentially subjected to reprisals as a result of our mismanagement of the interrogation process in Iraq and possibly elsewhere.

This is an important amendment. We have all been through this recently. Again, I am not charting new ground. As we know, in fact, at hearings chaired last month by the chairman of the committee here, it was made very clear, especially in the testimony and comprehensive report of General Taguba, a number of contractors may have played significant roles as interrogators in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Their abusive practices have compromised our interests in Iraq, and it remains to be seen whether they will ever be held accountable. Military people can. But contractors, such as those hired by the Department of Interior, may be outside the scope of legal jurisdictions.

Again, I am not the only one who believes that intelligence functions, particularly gathering intelligence through interrogations, should be carried out by Government personnel rather than contractors.

A December 26, 2000, Department of the Army memo dealing with exempting Army intelligence functions from privatization came to the same conclusion:

At a tactical level, the intelligence function under the

operational control of the Army performed by the military . .

. is an inherently Governmental function barred from private

sector performance.

They are exactly right. It ought to be an inherently governmental function. Outsourcing, where there is no accountability, where you don't have any ability to subject them to criminal prosecution if they do something wrong, I think, is dangerous business. It is dangerous business in the intelligence area.

The report went on to say:

At the operational and strategic level, the intelligence

function performed by the military personnel and Federal

civilian employees is a non-inherently governmental function

that should be exempted from private sector performance on

the basis of risk to national security from relying on

contractors to perform this function.

Nor was this view limited solely to the previous administration in 2000. Thomas White, former Secretary of the Army in the current administration, also expressed his opposition to hiring contractors to question prisoners, stating in an interview that ``the basic process of interrogation . . . should be kept in-house, on the Army side.''

He is right. That is exactly where it ought to be. This is dangerous business to go through. I was stunned to learn that the Department of the Interior the was actually the agency through which some of these contracts were awarded. No one knew to whom these contractors reported, what the chain of command was, or what sort of supervision there was.

We are in a new age since 9/11. You have to get people who can speak the language, who know what they are doing. We are in the world of terrorism. The President had it right last night. There is yet no horizon in this war on terrorism. It is going to be here for a long time. We better wake up, and if we need people to speak a language then we ought to hire them and train them. It is almost 3 years since 9/11. The fact that we need to put ads in the Washington Post to find people who can speak Arabic is ridiculous. We ought to get about the business of hiring people and training them. We need interrogators. We need the human intelligence capacity. I am all for fancy satellites and technology, but if you don't have people on the ground who can talk to these people and understand what they are saying, your intelligence is going to suffer.

Again, this practice of hiring contractors to perform interrogations is simply bad business. It goes beyond just the ugly photographs and the outrageous behavior that has cost us terribly in Iraq and elsewhere in our efforts at winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

And my amendment is limited in scope. It merely says that with respect to interrogations, the Department of Defense would have to hire people within the governmental framework to do the job.

On the translations, I will give you a year. You can use people outside if you want, but after a year let's get some people within the operations themselves who know what they are doing. The other sections of my amendment deal briefly with the transfer of prisoners.

In September, it will be 3 years since the horrific events of 9/11. It is high time that the administration moved forward to build a capacity, in-house, to ensure that our intelligence gathering capacity, including interrogation personnel, is adequate to meet the threats that we confront.

Giving the administration unlimited access to contractors by extending the waiver for interrogators beyond 90 days does not serve our national interest.

I would remind my fellow colleagues that the world has changed dramatically over the past three years. Part of the current mission in Iraq is a larger and absolutely critical mission that we are going to be confronting every single day for the foreseeable future in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Spain--and the list goes on and on--and elsewhere around the globe. In order to be prepared for that war, we must have within our own governmental structure the expertise to garner intelligence, including intelligence gleaned through interrogations.

The notion that we can simply outsource this critical responsibility when terrorist incidents spike the demand for interrogation skills by our Government seems to be the height of irresponsibility.

We were sidetracked a bit during the debate on Monday. As I said earlier, the chairman made a very good point in the area of combat missions. It is not a clear line. So we put that aside. But on interrogations, this is inherently a governmental function and we shouldn't be contracting out that function.

That is my point. I hope my colleagues will agree with us. I know the administration has some problems with it, but the fact is, let us get about the business of doing our job here and not endangering our own troops--which is what I worry about. The bottom line, one that I believe I share with every parent, sibling, or child who has a relative or a friend serving in these dangerous zones. I don't want our brave men and women, if they are apprehended, to go through what we saw happen to some of these Iraqi prisoners. These abuses put Americans at risk, in my view, if we don't get this business straight. I am determined to see that we fix this situation.

I hope my colleagues will support this. Let me withhold the remainder of my time.

Certainly.

The Senator is correct--90 days I think after the----

Just interrogations.

Mr. President, first, I don't believe necessarily that the military doesn't have the capacity to do

this. But the idea that the Department of the Interior is contracting out to private firms to conduct this function, when we have seen already the results when this matter gets out of hand because you have rogue elements doing it--we have suffered terribly as a result of this tremendous abuse that has gone on. I don't buy the idea that we can't get this straight. I think we can get it straight. There are plenty of people within the military services who can perform this function. And I don't put the same limitations on translators. I am giving a year to get that in shape.

The idea that somehow the military shouldn't be doing this--I didn't make this up; this isn't made out of whole cloth. The military themselves, going back several years, has said that this function should not be performed by outside contractors.

In fact, the most recent former Secretary of the Army said this.

Translators are not an issue.

That would be over a year from today.

Interrogators.

I don't ascribe to that. First, the analysts are not included; it is just the interrogators.

The idea that you are going to have people who are immune from prosecution, accountable to no one, with little supervision, or literally none in many cases, I think is a far more inherently dangerous problem than the difficulty in finding 30 or 40 people within the military structure to perform interrogations.

I would point out this job posting, which is from the Web site of CACI International, one of the companies that does interrogations for the Department of Defense. This is what it says you ought to be: The position requires a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, of 6 or 7 years of related experience--whatever that is--preferably in the intelligence field; requires a clearance, strong writing and briefing skills, with competency in automation research in basic software.

This is hardly the job description of someone who is so unique that we can't find the personnel within our own uniformed services.

No. They are not out of business at all. The interrogations would have to be done by governmental authorities. You can bring back military people to do it. There are plenty of guys who can do it, if we put them back on active duty. This is not an overly burdensome problem.

The question is, here we are debating the Defense authorization bill and we have been confronted which a huge problem that galvanized the world's attention only a few days ago. We know that part of the problem was because we had people who were not being held accountable and who have little or no supervision. At least we know that much already. In the midst of this debate, should we step up and try to do something about that problem?

If the argument is that we have no in-house capacity to fill 40 or 50 slots in Guantanamo, or maybe an equal amount in Iraq with 135,000 U.S. forces there and 20,000 in Afghanistan, the idea that we can't find people within the military services to fill 40 or 50 slots, then I don't accept it as a legitimate argument against this amendment.

They may want to keep contracting and have these contractors go through the Department of the Interior, but that is wrong, in my view, and I think it is dangerous. The military has said--I am not opposed to what their thinking is--categorically it ought not be done there. It is dangerous. It causes us problems and it is causing our military personnel problems. It ought to be changed.

I don't buy for a single second, with thousands of people serving in that theater, the idea we can't find people within our own ranks to do this job.

First of all, let me respond to my friend from Colorado. My amendment grants the President waiver authority in the case of translators for over a year.

We are about to graduate from the training school for Army intelligence in Arizona this year 539 interrogators within the Army. Here we are talking about 20 or 40 positions in Guantanamo Bay of interrogators--but we have 539 people this year who are going to graduate within the Army as interrogators. We know that at least some of the private contractors hired through Department of Interior contracts for interrogations are not well trained. A bachelor of arts degree will get you a job as interrogator. This situation is a mess. We know it is a mess. We have 539 people--double the number from last year--graduating this year. Why are we continuing a system that does not work where the Army themselves have said, stop it? We need to listen and stop it.

One of the most outrageous examples is the effort in Iraq. An outrageous situation occurred just days ago because the system has fallen apart. Do not tell me we will lose our capacity to interrogate people. That is hyperbole when you have 539 people about to graduate in addition to the ones we have in uniform today to do the job.

We know that having private contractors participate in interrogations is a problem. The Army has said that it is a problem. The most recent Secretary of the Army said it is a problem, and to stop it. The question is, will we do it here, today? Do we understand what happened here just a few days ago? Do we understand the problems it has caused?

A recent public opinion poll by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq shows us that a majority of Iraqis believe that all Americans conduct themselves in the way they saw in the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib. But that is not us.

I know people in uniform do a better job than someone who has been plucked off the street under a contract by the Department of Interior to do the job of intelligence. This is intelligence capacity. You do not outsource and farm that out to an unaccountable contractor with little or no experience in interrogations. Don't Members understand what happened here a few days ago, how much trouble our country is in?

We have 539 people about to graduate in the military services to conduct interrogations, and you are telling me we do not have enough and we cannot train people in uniform to do the job? I don't believe it. The American people do not, the international community does not.

This is not a complicated amendment. Let's wake up.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

All I have here is that the Pentagon has asked the school to boost its output dramatically and expects to graduate 539 interrogators this year, up from 237 in 2003.

Does my colleague from South Carolina want to take 15 seconds?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

I yield 30 seconds to my distinguished ranking member.

Mr. President, I think I have made the case. I will just summarize it for you here.

Since September 11, we have been in a different world. Developing our capacity and our ability to conduct interrogations, to be able to understand the languages of other peoples so we understand what is going on, is critically important.

And our ability to have inhouse, within our military services, the capacity to conduct one of the most important functions--that is, to conduct interrogations and gather intelligence that protects our men and women in uniform--should not be outsourced to people whose major qualification is a bachelor of arts degree.

These young people who are being trained in the military may be young, but they are trained interrogators. That is what we ought to be doing. We have 539 new ones, in addition to the ones who exist today, coming out of school soon. We ought to be saying--as the military has asked us now for 4 years--do not contract this out. This administration's most recent Secretary of the Army said: Do not contract this out.

This ought to be an inherently governmental function: to conduct interrogations, to gather intelligence, to protect our men and women in uniform, and to advance our cause. The idea, somehow, that this is going to slow us down or make us incapable of doing our job is foolishness. We all know what is going to happen. If we have a partisan debate here that rejects the idea that we ought to have an in-house capacity in intelligence areas, then the Army, or some in the military, will read that as a signal that they can continue doing what they are doing.

That is dangerous, in my view, dangerous when you have a Department of the Interior agency actually doing the contracting out to private companies, where the desired capability, according to their own Web site, is not much more than a bachelor of arts degree. That is it.

It is the 21st century. The war is on terrorism. Let's wake up. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reject the tabling motion.

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

Mr. President, if I may inquire, we have a pending amendment. What is the plan for dealing with amendments that have been offered and set aside? Do we try to resolve these matters in negotiation, or is there a schedule by which we will vote on these?

Correct, the contractors.

We may very well. I have not had a chance to speak with staff. I will be happy to speak with them in the next hour.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I would be glad to. I am impressed by the distinguished chairman's indulgence and patience as we wander through this maze of amendments. I believe I have to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I make such a request.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3312 and send a modification of that amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will go through and explain what this amendment does. At the outset of my remarks, let me begin by commending the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Levin of Michigan. The amendment I am raising here has been in many ways addressed by actions taken by the Armed Services Committee. I begin my comments by commending the chairman and the ranking member for the tremendous job they have done of improving what was a request by the administration in the area I am going to cover. I commend them as well for other matters but particularly on this point.

Like all of my colleagues, without regard to party or ideology, we have been concerned over the last number of months with the increasing number of reports that our men and women in uniform have had to dig deep into their own pockets to pay for their own safety equipment. Most disheartening have been the news accounts of men and women in uniform having to buy their own body armor here at home or having it bought for them by their loved ones before they deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan or while they have been on duty.

There are stories like that of SPC Bill Palifka, a member of the Connecticut National Guard's 248th Engineering Company which was stationed in the west of Baghdad last year. He learned shortly before deploying that his unit wouldn't have the interceptor vests that it needed in order to be safe in Iraq. So his mother Pene, from East Hartford, CN, went out and bought a vest for $1,100 from a private company.

These stories, unfortunately, have been all too common, as this chart shows. I brought up the news article from the New York Times, reported just 3 weeks ago, an article entitled ``Bulletproof Vests Collected To Help A Son's Unit in Iraq.'' A New Jersey couple solicited donations of body armor

from the New Jersey City police so their son could lay down protecting vests on the floor of his Humvee, currently in Iraq. I quote:

Before his unit shipped from Kuwait to Iraq in March, First

Lt. Christian Boggiano, 23, made a special appeal to his

mother, Mary, by e-mail message. Please, he asked, scrounge

around for a few old police bulletproof vests and mail them

to [me]. ``Once I get up north, we'll use them on the doors

and floors of the Humvees so that when roadside bombs go off,

they'll catch a lot of shrapnel.''

This is what the young lieutenant wrote to his parents, a 2002 graduate of West Point.

The Jersey Police Department and about 50 other police departments across New Jersey came through for Lt. Boggiano.

His unit came through in ways our Government did not.

In my mind, no U.S. soldier should have to get his mother or father to help send body armor for his missions in Iraq. But people like Mr. and Mrs. Baggiano and the good citizens associated with New Jersey police departments were driven to act. Why? Because there was a critical need to fully equip our troops. Unfortunately, Lt. Baggiano is not alone. A USA Today article recently reported on the village of Foley, AL, which held fundraisers, and eventually raised enough money to build and assemble their own protective steel armor for the Humvees of the AL National Guard's 711th Signal Battalion Charlie Company. That community should be commended. But this situation seems ludicrous to me. Our troops and their loving neighbors should not be spending their own money to make sure our soldiers can have the protection they need.

For this reason, I am introducing an amendment today that will give our troops the support they deserve. My amendment will require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse soldiers, loved ones, and nonprofit organizations who have dug deep into their own pockets to provide our troops with the equipment their Government should have provided them all along. This amendment will serve the health, safety, and protection of our soldiers, covering expenditures on items such as body armor, vehicle protection, hydration equipment, advanced combat helmets, and other gear needed to serve our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not a day goes by when we don't hear of an incident in Iraq where a so-called ``improvised explosive device'' or IED, has detonated, killing or maiming some of our brave men and women. At the outset of our post-war operations, it was reported that nearly one-quarter of American troops serving in Iraq did not have ceramic plated body armor, which can stop bullets fired from assault rifles and shrapnel. It took months and hundreds of U.S. casualties before the administration finally changed its priorities and decided to outfit all our deployed troops with the most modern interceptor body armor, and to outfit their vehicles with protective armor.

In addition, according to the Army, soldiers have been spending upward of $300 per person on equipment to outfit themselves for war. In response, the Army established the ``Rapid Fielding Initiative'' designed to outfit our soldiers with the most modern equipment available so that they do not have to spend their own money on the latest combat helmets or hydration systems. With this program, our soldiers--many of whom are less than the age of 21, making under $20,000 a year--will have the right gear for their mission, and they won't have to dig deep into their own pockets to buy their own equipment. But unfortunately, not all of our soldiers in Iraq have access to this program, because in the past, it hasn't been fully funded. That needs to be remedied, and my amendment will make sure that our troops don't have to shell out their own money to get the Camelbak hydration systems, advanced combat helmets, and proper clothing they need to do their jobs.

This chart shows what an average foot soldier is wearing in Iraq--60 pounds of body armor plus tactical equipment in the hot desert heat, heavy Kevlar vests, high-tech GPS compass gear, special frame backpacks, and other survival gear. In 120 degrees, carrying all of this equipment becomes quite burdensome, and has made special hydration systems necessary for our troops to safely survive the desert heat. Water-pack systems called Camelbaks are now being attached to soldiers' backpacks, to allow them easy access to water even while they are in patrolling the streets of Iraq. And let's be honest about this. Camelbaks are no longer a matter of convenience. If a soldier has to stop moving to take out his canteen for a sip of water, he may be a sitting duck for a sniper or insurgent fire.

Unfortunately, with a shortage of funds, the Army cannot afford to equip all its soldiers with this kind of equipment, so many soldiers are still using bulky canteens that quickly heat up in the desert sun. Most of the canteens do not have adequate capacity to carry all the water they need in Iraq's extreme heat. In other cases, soldiers are paying hundreds of dollars out of their own pocket to buy the equipment themselves, everything ranging from these Camelbaks to radios, because, in spite of the Army's stated priorities, the administration did not procure enough personal equipment for our fighting men and women. We need to do better than this.

I want to commend the Armed Services Committee for recognizing the importance of this program as well as that of critical body armor systems. I was pleased to see the Senate Armed Services Committee override the President's considerably low budget request for force protection. Under the leadership of Senators Warner and Levin, the Armed Services Committee increased the Rapid Fielding Initiative from the Bush administration's requested $57.2 million to $262 million. They also demonstrated their usual good sense and further added to the President's considerably low-budget request for personal body armor and armored vehicles. The Army told Congress the President's budget was shortchanging them by $295 million in interceptor body armor. And the Marines said they would be short $16.6 million if the Bush budget were to prevail. In spite of the President's proposals, the committee fully funded those programs.

In addition, $905 million was put toward the Stryker armored vehicles that are already proving valuable in military operations in Iraq. Almost $1.1 billion, an increase of $927 million over the President's proposed budget, was used to accelerate procurement of up-armored humvees, as well as add-on ballistic armor for medium and heavy trucks, to protect our troops on patrol in hostile environments. As a result of these provisions, critical resources will be sent to our troops to enhance their safety while in harm's way.

I applaud these efforts. I know some of my colleagues will suggest that because the committee has now funded these programs, my amendment is unnecessary. Or, as I have already been hearing, perhaps they will say that we are encouraging our troops to go out and buy new equipment since we'll just reimburse them in the end. I have the official DOD position paper with talking points opposing my amendment. I would like to address each of the issues raised, point by point.

First, DOD says, ``the amendment may not support the purchase of the proper equipment. The DOD spends millions to test and procure the needed protective, safety, and health equipment for our service members. The DOD will have no way of knowing what testing personally procured items went through or whether the equipment is effective.'' This seems to be an unreasonable argument. In spite of the millions DOD spent on testing equipment, the fact remains that they failed to outfit our soldiers with the gear they needed. The Department acknowledged as much, saying that our soldiers did not receive enough personal body armor until January of this year and will still not have adequately armored vehicles until July. In my modified amendment, we say that a soldier's company commander has the discretion to decide which protective gear would be appropriate for reimbursement. These commanders on the ground know our soldiers' needs the most. And it makes sense for them to be the ones determining what equipment the soldiers lacked when they headed over to Iraq and Afghanistan. This addresses another concern DOD seems to have that my amendment is somehow too broad--this amendment says that if and only if a soldier purchased an item that he absolutely

needed, according to the most knowledgeable soldiers in the field, he will be reimbursed for that item.

DOD's talking points also suggest that my amendment will encourage service members and their loved ones to purchase equipment on their own outside this accountability with the exception of receiving future reimbursement.'' That is absolutely misleading.

This amendment only applies to purchases made during finite periods, and by the Army's own admission they had not provided adequate supplies to our troops. This amendment only applies to purchases for personal body armor and other safety equipment that can be made only for the period between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2003. For purchases to provide Humvee protection, claims can be made only for the period of September 11, 2001, and July 31, 2004.

We allow an exception to that if the Army decides they will have all the necessary equipment by these dates. If for some reason they are unable to do it, we do not need to come back with another amendment. It seems to me we ought to leave it up to the military people to decide. If they are not able to meet the dates, then they have authority to reimburse later. I leave that up to them to avoid any future need of talking about this issue on the floor of the Senate. We are dealing with finite periods. It is the field commanders who make the decisions.

Finally, to address the charge my amendment sets an unmanageable precedent that the DOD claims will saddle the Department of Defense with an open-ended financial burden, we also modified the amendment to set a $1,100 cap on money that can be reimbursed for purchases made on behalf of any one individual. I was going to make it $1,000. I changed it to $1,100. Candidly, a family in Connecticut paid $1,100 for the vest their child needed while in combat. So we made the cap at that level. I believe, therefore, my colleagues will find this proposal more reasonable and, most importantly, necessary. It is a finite period of time, there are individual caps on the amount that can be reimbursed, field commanders would make the decision, and any extension of time would have to come from a unilateral decision by the Department of Defense.

I think it is reasonable. If people went out, such as my constituents or in communities in New Jersey or towns in Alabama and provided additional protection for our service men and women, the very least, it seems to me, we can do is reimburse their individual soldiers, their families, or the organizations that provided that protection.

I, again, think we all understand how these things can happen. Certainly, there should have been better preparation to see to it these young men and women would have all the protection necessary, but for a variety of reasons, which we do not need to pore over, they were not. And by the Department of the Army's own admission, we were not able to provide that body armor until December 31 of last year. So there is a gap of almost 2 years where people were acquiring that equipment, and up until July of this year, the Humvee protections will not be in place.

I do not think it is asking too much during a finite period of time for a limited amount of money, where field commanders make the decisions, that we cannot say to these families: Show us the proof of what you paid for this equipment, let the field commanders decide, and if you meet those tests, then your Government is going to say you should not have to dish out money from your own pockets, particularly when we are talking about 21-year-old kids making $20,000 a year, where they may have invested $1,000 in decent vests to protect from IEDs and other attacks occurring on the dangerous streets of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe this is a reasonable proposal we have offered. If we fail to adopt this amendment, I believe my colleagues and I will once again be forced to answer tough questions, as we all do, when we go back and meet our returning soldiers from the Guard and Reserve and their families in our respective States.

At every meeting I have had in the State of Connecticut with families of men and women serving in Iraq, this issue has come up: Why are we not providing the protection these men deserve?

I, along with General Cugno, my National Guard commander in Connecticut, tried to address these questions of how these things happen. I told him we would make an effort to see that any costs they incurred of these items would be reimbursed. They believe that is the right thing to do. I hope my colleagues do as well.

I know money is tight this year. We are facing enormous budget deficits. Again, I commend my friends and colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, they have done a very good job in beefing up the numbers that otherwise come from the Department of Defense and the White House, and by adding additional resources, they have made it possible to do this.

The amendment provides Secretary of Defense discretion to determine from which accounts moneys will be sought to reimburse our soldiers. One obvious place from which these moneys could be drawn is the $2.5 billion contingency fund that was added by the Warner amendment a few days ago as part of the $25 billion supplemental for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is my argument. That is the amendment. My hope is we will be able to adopt it without much fanfare. It seems to be a reasonable request to make on behalf of our men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I certainly do not disagree. I do not know the numbers myself. Others may have more detailed information. We know there were some large stories--I do not have all of them here. There have been widespread reports of it.

I accept in part what my colleague has said, that it would be unnecessary for massive amounts of this kind of armor. There was an anticipation about a different reception after the military victory in Iraq. We discovered otherwise. Of course, somebody argued we should have anticipated that. Nonetheless, there was concern.

I am not prepared to make a case here that this is terribly widespread. I do not know that. I do know there were enough examples of it that I thought it warranted an issue.

I point out, again--I say this to my friend and Senator Levin as well--my colleagues have done a terrific job. There is a difference in this budget between what was sent and what the

committee is asking us to support when it comes to these issues, and the significant increase, from $57 million to $262 million for buying additional equipment, is a significant amount of money. I commend both Senators for doing that.

There were other areas where additional resources were provided by the committee that were not otherwise requested by the DOD. I applaud my colleagues for that. I do not know what the numbers reflect in terms of widespread use. The committee did a very good job, and, as I said at the outset, I commend you immensely for having recognized this issue and jumped into the void so that today it looks as though, based on assessments, by July 31 of this year the issue involving the Humvees will be addressed, and back in December of last year the issue looks as if it was addressed in terms of body armor. So we cover those periods where there apparently was a lack of resources.

I do not think the issue would have come to closure if it had not been for the Senator from Virginia, and I also say this to my colleague from Michigan. It made a significant difference, and I thank my colleagues immensely on behalf of my constituents and literally thousands of soldiers serving in dangerous places.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, but I had hoped, if he would not object, we could ask for a rollcall vote because we will be looking to vote anyway, and this would help the conference as a whole. I know we want to move things along.

I would like to respect my friend from Virginia.

That is a reasonable request. I will ask for one and we can vitiate it later.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

I call up amendment 3313 and I send a modification to the desk.

I am happy to do that.

Mr. President, I have sent the modification to the desk. I inquire, has the Chair ruled on it?

Fine.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now be allowed to debate amendment No. 3313, as modified.

Thank you, Madam President. And, again, I commend my two friends and colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Let me briefly describe what this amendment is and what we try to do.

This amendment attempts to address what I believe is a very legitimate and serious concern that has come to light in recent days with respect to the use or misuse of contractors in the treatment of detainees in Iraq.

Quite simply, this amendment would prohibit the use of contractors in the interrogation of prisoners and offensive military operations and establish certain restrictions with respect to the transfer of prisoners to contractors and foreign nations.

Let me try to explain why this is so and what the background of all this is. According to some estimates, there are as many as 20,000 contractors operating in Iraq today, many carrying out mission-critical military roles, such as security, protection, interrogation, logistics support, and paramilitary and military training.

Increasingly, U.S. contractor activities have become deeply intertwined with those of U.S. troops and Coalition Provisional Authority personnel. These activities have put them in harm's way. As we have all painfully learned, contractors are among those who have been taken hostage by insurgents in Iraq. They have also suffered terrible injuries and loss of life, the most horrific of which occurred on April 13 of this year when the bodies of four contractors were burned, mutilated, and hung from a bridge in Iraq.

Equally troubling, it looks more and more likely that contractors may have taken part in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners and may be linked directly or indirectly to the reported abuses of those prisoners. Even today there may be still some taking part in the interrogation of prisoners.

Let me say as an aside, by the way, that I commend, again, the Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the very thoughtful hearings the Armed Services Committee had about this matter and the professional manner in which they went about examining these issues and doing the kind of thorough look that a standing committee of the Senate ought to make, regardless of the party in power in the White House. They have done a very good job and have been tremendously helpful to the American public.

We have all read reports and seen graphic pictures of the heinous abuses associated with the incarceration of Iraqi prisoners. Unfortunately, so has almost the entire world been witness to these photographs and the stories about what has occurred.

It does not take much of an imagination to figure out that the consequence of those abuses has been a disaster not only with respect to the U.S. policy in Iraq but also with respect to our policies throughout the greater Middle East. That is why I have included a provision in the pending amendment to prohibit the use of contractors in the interrogation of prisoners, detainees, and combatants. However, mindful that in the short term we may not have sufficient military personnel with requisite language and interrogation skills at certain critical moments, I have also included in this pending amendment Presidential authority to waive these restrictions under certain narrow constrictions: During fiscal year 2005 with respect to their use as translators, and for the first 90 days of the next fiscal year with respect to interrogations.

It should go without saying that any contractor who is employed by the United States as a translator or interrogator must be certified as highly proficient in the areas for which he or she is being employed, and such contractors must be properly supervised at all times by official U.S. military personnel. To help ensure that is the case, the amendment I am offering this afternoon would also require the President to submit a quarterly report to Congress on the use of contractors as translators and in interrogations.

I remind my colleagues that at this very moment contractors in Iraq go about their business virtually unregulated. They have been exempted from local law by CPA regulation. They are also outside the Uniform Military Code of Justice and could, therefore, avoid prosecution in a military court of law. Contractors' accountability under U.S. international law remains untested. And now the Bush administration is putting pressure on the transitional Iraqi government to grant immunity to contractors after the June 30 transfer of power. If the transitional Iraqi government succumbs to this pressure, contractors won't only have immunity from prosecution, they will likely be able to act with impunity while they participate in some of our most sensitive military intelligence operations. I think this is unacceptable and puts our troops and our mission at great risk.

The more we learn, the more it seems this whole business of hiring contractors has gotten out of control. We need to be more scrupulous-- not less--about the tasks we assign to contractors. Quite frankly, I don't think it makes much sense to have contractors performing interrogations. Apparently neither does the Army, whose policy reportedly bars contractors from military intelligence jobs such as interrogating prisoners unless there are not enough qualified people in the Army to perform those duties.

According to recent reports, the source of this policy is an Army policy memo, written in December 2000, by Patrick T. Henry, then the Army's top personnel official. In this memo he asserted that allowing private workers to gather military intelligence presented ``a risk to national security.'' That statement is anything but ambiguous. Let me quote it again. From the Army's top personnel official, it is ``a risk to national security,'' in a 2000 memo prepared by the U.S. Army.

Thomas White, the former Secretary of the Army, has also expressed his opposition to hiring contractors to question prisoners, stating in an interview ``the basic process of interrogation should be kept in- house on the Army side.''

Moreover, last week it was reported that CACI International, a contractor caught up in this controversy, was not

even under contract with the Department of Defense. Rather its activities were being managed by the U.S. Department of Interior which approved the company's hiring of interrogators utilizing a preexisting contract for computer services with that company. The particular circumstances of the CACI contract blur even further the accountability of its employees because Department of Interior contractors may not be covered by certain U.S. laws specifically enacted to cover Department of Defense contractors, such as the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which attempts to make U.S. Department of Defense contractors working overseas legally accountable.

How many other contractors have been employed by non-Department of Defense agencies to carry out activities in Iraq? To say we have seen some extraordinary contracting practices in the case of Iraq is an understatement. I would hope these practices are not being employed to circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions or other international U.S. laws, because if you are doing this as a matter of policy, I am deeply concerned that we will be inviting other nations to do the same to the detriment of the safety of American military and civilian personnel around the globe.

Indeed, according to the comprehensive report of MG Antonio Taguba, contractors employed in Iraq participated in prisoner interrogations with minimal supervision. And I quote him:

They allegedly on occasion even provided direction to U.S.

military police.

The words ``minimal supervision'' are not mine. They were part of a job posting for the interrogator international analyst team lead assistant which is listed on the contract at CACI International's Web site.

I have reproduced an excerpt from the job posting as it was reprinted in the Washington Post on May 10 on the poster behind me. It reads:

Description: Assists the interrogation support program team

. . . to increase the effectiveness of dealing with

detainees, persons of interest and prisoners of war (POWs)

that are in the custody of the U.S./Coalition forces . . . in

terms of screening, interrogation, and debriefing of persons

of intelligence value. Under minimal supervision, will assist

. . .

The key words are ``under minimal supervision.'' The new posting now reads ``under minimal CACI supervision,'' the name of the international company.

This isn't all. A former CACI interrogator was quoted on May 13 in the Washington Post as saying:

Civilian interrogators were often free to conduct

interrogations as they best saw fit.

And General Taguba reportedly recommended to one employee of CACI that he be ``fired, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for giving instructions to Army policemen that he clearly knew equated to physical abuse.''

Indeed, this lack of supervision may have been the rule rather than the exception in the Abu Ghraib prison. More importantly, with the fate of our mission in Iraq and our international reputation at stake, the American people deserve to know why civilian contractors were participating in these interrogations in the first place.

This Senator--and I am sure many of my colleagues would agree--does not think private contractors have any place in such highly sensitive military operations. That is not only because of these human rights abuses or potential violations of U.S. international law, it is because they have exponentially increased the danger level for more than 135,000 honorable and dedicated U.S. troops currently risking their lives in Iraq. We owe it to all those brave men and women who now face a far more difficult task in winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis or setting the stage for the successful handover of sovereignty to Iraqi officials less than 15 days from now.

My amendment also addresses the related issue of the transfer of prisoners in U.S. custody. It would not only prohibit the U.S. Department of Defense from transferring prisoners into a contractor's custody, but it would also require the Secretary of Defense to keep a written record of prisoner transfers from DOD custody to foreign nations.

Why is this provision necessary? Because according to published reports, interrogation strategies reportedly included sending detainees to third countries where in some cases, according to the New York Times, they are convinced they might be executed.

A set of post-9/11 legal memoranda prepared by the U.S. Government even suggested ``if U.S. Government officials are contemplating procedures that may put them in violation of American statutes that prohibit torture, degrading treatment, or the Geneva Conventions, they will not be held responsible if it can be argued that the detainees are formally in the custody of another nation.''

There may be instances when the transfer of prisoners to third countries would serve our interests. My amendment does not prohibit that from happening. But at the very least, records of transfers should be kept to ensure that the transfer of prisoners to countries with poor human rights records is not used to circumvent U.S. and international law. My amendment would mandate that such records be kept.

Finally, this amendment would also prohibit contractors from participating in most combat operations except in cases of self- defense, and it would prevent U.S. moneys from being used to pay contractors for those purposes. I understand our stated U.S. policy does not permit U.S. contractors in combat. The chaos on the ground has created a climate where, for the most part, these individuals operate with little or no oversight. Without specific language in statute which clearly spells out what are and are not permissible contractor activities, there will always exist the danger that circumstances will draw private citizens into armed conflict.

I would hope my colleagues would support codifying into law what the administration has said is its policy with respect to the use of private contractors in combat situations.

Madam President, I will briefly sum up what I am trying to accomplish with the pending amendment. First, I propose to restrict the use of contractors in prisoner interrogations. I point out that we provide for a little leeway here that would allow, during fiscal 2005, for a little time to be used, because we may not have the people at hand who can do translations, or perform interrogations, so we provide leeway to build this up. We would prohibit such individuals from being employed in prisoner interrogations.

Second, we would prohibit such individuals from being employed in offensive combat missions.

Finally, I would keep private contractors out of the prisoner contracting business.

I commend Senators Warner and Levin for their willingness to address some of the issues I have touched on in this amendment in the last few weeks. This is so we in the Congress ``get it,'' so to speak, and we are ready to begin repairing the damage caused by these problems which, in some cases, continue to endanger our efforts in Iraq and throughout the globe.

I believe the amendment is a reasonable and measured response to the challenges we face. I urge my colleagues to support the efforts embodied in this proposal.

I yield the floor.

Let me respond, if I may. It is an anticipated argument. We have similar provisions applying in certain categories under the United States Code here, 10 U.S.C. Section 113, Notice to Congress of Proposed Changes in Combat Assignments to Which Female Members May be Assigned; and also in Public Law 103-160.

I ask unanimous consent to have both of these provisions of the United States Code printed in the Record.

In Public Law 103-160, it says:

(4) For purpose of this subsection, the term ``ground

combat exclusion policy'' means the military personnel

policies of the Department of Defense and the military

departments, is in effect on January 1, 1993, by which female

members of the Armed Forces are restricted from assignment to

units and positions whose mission requires routine engagement

and direct combat on the ground.

So there is a precedent here, and I am using this as an example of that same language. First, it would come under defending themselves to a certain point. The idea we are trying to get at is to have these personnel not become directly involved in combat.

I am happy to do that. My intention is, obviously, not to try to chart new areas of law.

We will talk with staff to see if we might make the language tighter.

If I may respond, it is not an illegitimate concern in talking about personnel. We have all seen what could happen when you have people operating who are unregulated. In some cases, contractors have worked out of the Department of the Interior, so there is no supervision by the DOD. We are asking these people, unregulated, with no clear lines of authority, to do these things, and we have seen what happens when that occurs. It appears this is getting out of hand by private contractors.

In the area of intelligence gathering, dealing with sensitive matters--sensitive to the issue of having enough personnel on the ground to do these things--I am far more worried about the fact of rogue elements being able to cause us tremendous harm.

I think all would admit certainly that the result of what happened in Abu Ghraib prison and what the world knows today has been tremendously harmful to the United States and potentially to our men and women in uniform who may be subjected to interrogations. We know we are going to see the answers raised by others.

I provided in the amendment some leeway to allow for a period of time so it would not be required to have an immediate requirement that all of these individuals be replaced on the adoption of this particular law but allow for some leeway.

Madam President, if the Senator will go to page 2 of the amendment, the very bottom line, 25, section (b), the President may also waive the prohibition in paragraph 1 with respect to the use of contractors. Otherwise provided by that paragraph during the 90-day period--going on page 3--beginning on the date of enactment of this act, but any such waiver shall cease to be effective on the last day of such period.

There is also an earlier provision in regard to translator services regarding additional time.

I am quoting from the bill. With regard to 1(a) on page 2-- and you go to page 2 of the amendment--

Then go to line 10. It talks about interrogation of prisoners, detainees, and the like. Paragraph (b), and then it goes, on line 17, during fiscal year 2005 the President may waive prohibition in paragraph 1 with respect to contractors and provide translator services under paragraph (a), if the President determines no United States military personnel or appropriate language skills are available.

Go on down to line 25, page 2, section (b): The President may also waive the prohibition in paragraph 1(a) with respect to the use of any contractors. I am reading on page 3.

I have modified it, yes.

On page 2 of the amendment, go down and begin on line 10, and I believe that is section (a). It talks about the interrogation of prisoners, what would not be allowed. Then paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Then on line 17, 2(a), it says: During fiscal year 2005, the President may waive the prohibition in paragraph 1 with respect to the use of contractors to provide translator services under paragraph (a) of that paragraph.

Without reading the rest of that language, going to line 25, subparagraph (b) on page 2: The President may also waive the prohibition in paragraph 1(a) with respect to use of contractors--page 3 now--otherwise prohibited by that paragraph during the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act.

Senator Levin raised this question, and we discussed it. It is a legitimate point. We do not expect for this to happen overnight. It would be unreasonable.

The point I want to make generically, because I think my colleague raises a very legitimate issue, is that the war on terror is not going to be over tomorrow, and it seems to me we better get the expertise in these areas. They are going to be an integral part of our Government service to have this talent, this ability. It is a new age we have entered, and we have to be prepared to address it.

I am deeply worried about having these unregulated, uncontrolled contractors, many of which are operating with agencies that are not even under the Department of Defense in a theater of conflict where the ability to control, regulate, and supervise may be going out the window.

As I say, I was stunned to read about the Department of the Interior. What is the Department of the Interior doing and what authority does the Department of Defense have over contractors hired by the Department of the Interior operating in a prison environment in Baghdad? That worries me. If they are not trained, who are these people gathering intelligence? How much reliance can we have?

I realize we are in tough shape with personnel, but my point is the sooner we start developing the in-house capabilities--I recall reading after 9/11 that we actually ran advertisements in local papers for people who could speak Arabic for jobs in the State Department. This is a terrible revelation that we do not have people capable of doing this skill.

I am worried that if we continue to rely on a very loose operation-- we found out what happens, and we have suffered terribly as a result of these abuses that occurred.

I do not know to the extent and, obviously, others are looking into the details of it now, but certainly we know now there were a number of private contractors basically unsupervised operating in their own world and may have been directed by our military personnel under certain circumstances.

I am sensitive to the concerns raised by the chairman who, by the way--and I will state it again. The hearings that the chairman and the ranking member have held on this issue have been tremendously worthwhile, and I commend them immensely for what they are doing. If there are ways in which this amendment can be modified to address the not illegitimate concerns about how do you transition from a present situation into one we can build, then I am interested in how we do that.

I am not interested in having an amendment and having a vote, allowing it to come out one way or the other. I think it is a critically important issue. We have at least 20,000 people operating as independent contractors in a very important theater, and we are going to face more situations not unlike this in the coming years.

It seems to me we better start addressing this pretty quickly, and this amendment is an effort to do that.

As I said, the idea is it is one thing for them to be in a capacity to provide protection and certainly take steps for self- defense. I am trying to draw a distinction of engaging in offensive combat missions because there is some concern they have been involved in that level of activity.

Again, I hope the language used in existing law that draws a distinction between ground activity, combat activity, and noncombat activity, defensive activity, would be clear enough. Again, I am happy to spell out that language more clearly. I am just trying to avoid a situation where, again, people who are untrained, unregulated, and unsupervised can get us into a lot of difficulty in a very sensitive area.

Madam President, let me put this in the Record, if I may, for my colleagues. Under Public Law 107-306, November 27, 2002, subsection (e), ``Limitation on Participation of United States Personnel'':

No United States Armed Forces personnel or United States

civilian contractor employed by the United States will

participate in any combat operation in connection with

assistance made available under this section, except for the

purpose of acting in self defense or rescuing any United

States citizen to include United States Armed Forces

personnel, United States civilian employees, and civilian

contractors employed by the United States.

I am not creating new law. That is a public law that is on the books. So I say to my colleagues, I do not believe we are going off in an area that would be unwarranted.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this Public Law 107-306 dated November 27, 2002 be printed in the Record.

It is Title V, the Department of Defense Intelligence Activities. That is the section, subsection e, of that title V.

I have no difficulty with----

I always appreciate the advice and counsel of the chairman of the committee so I will take a look and see if there is some common language that might meet those concerns.

I presume others would want to lay it aside when other amendments are being considered. I do not object to that.

Let's take 1 minute prior to the vote.

It was modified to 2 minutes, equally divided.

OK. Two minutes to each side.

If my colleague will yield, just going over this--and I certainly have no difficulty at all trying to clear up, if we can, the section 1(b) issue that my colleague from Virginia has raised. To the best of my knowledge at this point, we will explore it further, but my examination shows dealing with interrogation is a directive. It's not a law. It has been a policy, and the policy allowed for exceptions to be made when there were not enough personnel or whatever else to deal with it.

That is what has happened here. This is a policy that has been around for about 4 years--maybe a little earlier, maybe 1998, certainly no later than 2000. As such, it lacks codification in any sense at all, and it has been adhered to in the breach more than in the letter of it. That is how I understand this. I know of no Army regulations dealing with this issue, other than a general policy direction.

It seemed to me on this particular point, the codification of our feelings about this, if a majority of my colleagues in the other body agree, should be put in place. We are going to be faced with more of this in the years ahead. I think some very clear direction for the U.S. Congress on how interrogations ought to be conducted and who conducts them, under what authority, what supervision, what regulation, is absolutely essential.

That is the heart of the amendment. The combat function was really just a throwaway because it was existing law, as I understood it. But I am prepared to be corrected if that is not the case. I was reading from existing statutes regarding contractors and use in combat situations, under what parameters they are allowed to operate, sort of tracking that as to be included here. But I am prepared to stand corrected if that is not the case.

Certainly.

I thank my colleague from Michigan for his comments. I totally agree with him. I thank my colleague from Virginia as well for his counsel.

I ask unanimous consent this amendment be laid aside unless my colleague wants to address it any further, and then we will do some work to see if we can't resolve some of these issues before we move on.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, the chairman, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin. I do not want to speak for the majority, but based on what Senator Warner said earlier, I believe he may be supportive of the amendment. If that is the case, I welcome that.

Very briefly, the amendment is designed to provide reimbursement dollars for expenditures incurred by people in the military, their family members, or nonprofit organizations that have purchased body armor, additional protection for our men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are limitations. There is a time-definite period during which those acquisitions had to occur. The acquisitions must be approved by field commanders rather than just the individuals. There is a dollar- amount limitation of $1,100 on any purchase.

I do not know how widespread this is. I have commended the Armed Services Committee for substantially increasing the President's request of some $57 million to $262 million in this area, which I believe is going to tremendously assist in seeing to it that our men and women in uniform have whatever they need to allow them to perform their very difficult functions in two very different and difficult theaters.

Certainly, having loved ones acquire this equipment is unacceptable to all of us. This amendment is designed to make whole those who have incurred the costs. Again, I am grateful to the Armed Services Committee for what I assume is an indication of some support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I have no information to argue with the conclusions of the chairman of the committee. My hope would be that is exactly the case. There are only a few isolated cases. If there are more, we will discover that. But on the basis of what we know thus far, there was a case in Connecticut, a serious one in Alabama, one in New Jersey. There

have been others. Even if there are a few, they are a few too many. In this case, we will provide some compensation for them as a result of those acquisitions.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer words in memory of America's 40th president, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was elected President on the same day that I was first elected to the United States Senate. I was somewhat of an anomaly that year, being one of only two freshman Democrats elected to the Senate, compared with 16 Republicans.

Over the years, there is no question that when it came to matters of policy, Ronald Reagan and I disagreed, in a

very fundamental way, on a great many occasions.

But in today's very partisan atmosphere, it is easy to forget that personality can be much more important than agreements and disagreements. Many of the qualities that distinguished Ronald Reagan-- as a president, as a leader, as an individual--went beyond policies and politics.

Ronald Reagan was one of our Nation's most personable presidents. His congeniality, wit and trademark sense of humor could bring a smile to the face of even the most ardent political opponent. And he had the uncanny ability to communicate his thoughts to the American people.

As a Member of the opposite side of the political aisle, I had a particular appreciation for Ronald Reagan's openness. As we all know, President Reagan was a man of great conviction. It wasn't easy to change his mind. But he was willing to sit down and talk. He was open to listening to views that were different from his own, even if he ultimately chose to disagree with them. Ronald Reagan was able, as the saying goes, to disagree without being disagreeable.

Though we had our differences on many issues, I would never doubt for a minute Ronald Reagan's commitment to this Nation, just as I don't believe he doubted the patriotism of his political adversaries. Ronald Reagan believed deeply in our country and in its values, and in its place in the history of humankind. He correctly saw the former Soviet Union, with its regime of repression, imprisonment, and stifling of the individual spirit, as antithetical to everything in which we believe. He presided over a historic time period during which we witnessed the beginnings of a dramatic, global political sea change.

Ronald Reagan was a leader who reflected the optimism and spirit of this great Nation. At the time he was elected president, our country was experiencing a crisis of confidence. Many wondered if America's best days were behind it. Ronald Reagan had an unflagging belief in America, and he helped restore a sense of possibility in our land.

As a society, we often elevate our public figures to practically mythological proportions, and our presidents are no exception. Towards the end of Ronald Reagan's life, though, we were reminded of his humanity. All of us, particularly those of us who have watched a loved one struggle late in life, were inspired by the dignity, grace, and courage with which he and his family battled a terrible and devastating disease--a disease that ultimately took Ronald Reagan, in the words of his wife Nancy, to a place where she could no longer reach him.

Many tributes have been and will be paid to President Reagan's memory. But I can't think of a greater tribute than to commit our Nation to fully researching the causes of, and cures for, diseases like Alzheimer's that cause such great suffering for such great numbers of people.

At this difficult time, my heart goes out to Nancy and the entire Reagan family. America celebrated with you on so many happy occasions. This week, we all join you in your sorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the 35th anniversary of the merger between Easter Seals of New Haven, CT, Goodwill Industries of South Central Connecticut, and the New Haven Area Rehabilitation Center. The celebration of this historic occasion will occur on Monday, June 14, 2004.

For 35 years, Easter Seals Goodwill Industries Rehabilitation Center has made remarkable achievements in its mission to enhance employment opportunities and the quality of life for people with disabilities and other special needs.

1930 marked the initial formation of Goodwill Industries of Central Connecticut. The New Haven Area Rehabilitation Center and the New Haven Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults were created in 1954. Eventually, the leaders of these three organizations recognized that they could accomplish far more working together than they could as separate entities. They made the decision to put aside any feelings of personal or institutional pride, and to come together for the benefit of those they served. The merger in 1969 was the first in our Nation's history that involved two major American non profit organizations.

The results speak for themselves. In the 35 years since the merger, the Easter Seals Goodwill Industries Rehabilitation Center has served approximately 50,000 individuals with disabilities and special needs throughout the New Haven area.

Today, Easter Seals Goodwill Industries Rehabilitation Center continues to provide valuable assistance in career exploration and job placement, work skill development and training, and various other employment support services to individuals with disabilities and special needs. The center also offers vital social assistance to individuals with disabilities, enabling them to connect with others and to become active participants in their local communities. Finally, Easter Seals Goodwill Industries works throughout Connecticut to help our State's residents find proper housing, transportation, and education.

I especially congratulate my good friend Malcolm Gill, who has contributed 20 years of dedication and leadership as President of the Easter Seals Goodwill Industries Rehabilitation Center. I also recognize the hard work of the Board of Directors, the staff, and community volunteers who selflessly continue to serve the New Haven community.

On behalf of the State of Connecticut, and the United States Senate, I congratulate Easter Seals Goodwill Industries Rehabilitation Center on 35 outstanding years of service. I wish them continued success for many years to come.

Madam President, I commend our two distinguished leaders-- majority leader Senator Frist and Democratic leader Senator Daschle-- for their very eloquent remarks which I think capture the spirit of all of us as we gather today.

I want to take a few moments to recognize six of our colleagues for their wonderful contribution who were part of this remarkable generation which we have talked about so frequently over the last number of days, and to thank them immensely for their contribution not only during that great conflict but also for their continuing service to this country.

I think all of us witnessed one way or another this past weekend the remarkable gathering on the great Mall of our capital city for the inauguration and dedication of the national World War II Memorial.

We are recognizing six of our colleagues today, but having watched that event, two individuals I must say I couldn't take my eyes off. One was our former majority leader Bob Dole. Without his leadership, the new memorial would not have been constructed. He is not with us any longer as a part of this body but was for some years and played such an important role in seeing to it that this memorial would be built in a timely fashion.

I am stunned to know that about 1,000 of our 6 colleagues' fellow veterans who served in World War II are lost every single day. So this monument could not be built soon enough.

The other one I was watching was former President George Bush, a remarkable hero of that great conflict in his own right. He has a wonderful sense of humility, and rarely discusses his tremendous service as a combat pilot. In fact, I find one thing common about these 6 colleagues of ours, Democrats and Republicans alike. They have a wonderful sense of humility. Every time this subject matter comes up, all of them show a reluctance to talk about their own individual contributions. I admire them for that.

As for my other heroes, I don't want to make all of them feel very old. But my good friend from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, just said ``Happy birthday'' to me the other day. He asked, How old are you? I hesitate to tell you that I was 6 years old when D-Day occurred. I turned 60 the other day. That makes me feel old. But it must make those who were part of that great conflict a bit older as we gather here today.

But it is not an exaggeration to say we would not, in my view, be enjoying the freedoms which we do as Americans and as so many other people do--all over the world--today if it had not been for the remarkable contribution of those who gave so much, particularly the 400,000 who never came home. Of the 16 million who served, 400,000 gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe, Africa and the Pacific islands.

We can never find the adequate words to express our gratitude to them and to their families--the wonderful people who made a contribution obviously on the home front as well producing the materials necessary to successfully prosecute the war.

In recent times, we have had a number of debates over what constitutes a ``just war.'' There is no such debate about World War II. World War II was truly a defining moment--not only for our Nation, but for the entire world. It was not merely a clash of armies. It was one of values. It was a time when those nations of the world that stood for freedom, tolerance, equality and opportunity took on, and defeated, the forces of tyranny, oppression and genocide. World War II was literally a fight for the future of humanity. It is no exaggeration to say that had the outcome of World War II been different, the institution in which we serve might very well not be in existence today.

Each and every one of us today owes his or her freedom, in a very real way, to the men and women who gave of themselves during the war-- those who served overseas, as well as those who contributed on the homefront. I would like to especially recognize the tremendous contributions of those from my own State of Connecticut. About 210,000 men and women from Connecticut served in the Second World War. Connecticut's civilians also played an enormous part in the war effort by helping supply our troops with planes, firearms, and other weapons and technologies that were so vital to our victory.

I want to be an additional voice here today to say, Thank you. It is rather remarkable that in a body of 100 people we have 6 veterans of World War II among us. We are very grateful to all of you for your wonderful contribution and to have you as wonderful friends--Frank Lautenberg, Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye, two Senators from the same State, a rather remarkable distinction. I think it is special to have 2 Senators from the same State who are veterans. Fritz Hollings--I know I am in violation of Senate rules a bit. But I noticed someone in the gallery and wanted to pay tribute to Peatsy Hollings. I know there are a lot of spouses and others who went through a lot as well.

In addition to my great friend from South Carolina and his lovely wife, Ted Stevens, who I care so much about and admire immensely; John Warner, one of my dearest friends in the world. I thank all of you for your wonderful contributions.

I am very proud to serve with you, and I thank you.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Reed, and others as an original co-sponsor of this important legislation, which would clarify the intent of a provision in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations law regarding the Section 8 housing voucher program.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, has claimed that language in the FY2004 appropriations law requires it to distribute voucher funding in a manner that leaves no alternative but to reduce assistance by $191 million nationwide. Subsequently, it issued a notice on April 22, 2004 that put in place a new system for funding Section 8 vouchers that differed greatly from its usual practice. In the past, HUD would reimburse housing authorities for the cost of providing housing to low-income individuals based on their real, current costs. Under the April 22 guidelines, however, the reimbursements will be gauged to August 1, 2003, plus a small adjustment for inflation. In addition, the change will be retroactive to January 1, 2004, which will create even further confusion for those public housing authorities whose vouchers are already issued and whose budget are already finalized.

I strongly believe that that HUD's interpretation of the FY2004 appropriations law is both unduly restrictive and is in sharp contradiction to the intent of Congress to fully fund Section 8 program. Despite HUD's protestations that Congress forced its hand to make these cuts, Congress in fact added funding to the Section 8 program in FY2004 so that HUD could fully fund all vouchers currently in use. Congress appropriated $17.6 billion in FY2004 to renew expiring Section 8 contracts, or $1.4 billion above the amount requested by the administration. Although the FY2004 appropriations law did make some modest changes in how voucher funding is disbursed, nothing in the law mandated that HUD take the unprecedented step of cutting housing assistance for senior citizens, the disabled, and working families and individuals with the greatest housing needs.

It therefore makes little sense that HUD would insist on reading the FY2004 appropriations law in such a way as to produce more homelessness across the nation. My own State of Connecticut will be especially hurt if HUD's April 22 notice is not changed to reflect the program commitments of housing authorities. Many public housing authorities in Connecticut are anticipating that the HUD proposal will result in a significant reduction in funds needed to honor existing contracts as well as effectively administer the voucher program. The current average Housing Assistance Payment for many agencies has typically increased beyond the August 1, 2003 ``benchmark'' plus the Annual Adjustment Factor. In most cases, this result is not due to increases in local rental rates but reflects the rise in unemployment among Section 8 participants and thus an increase in the public housing authority's share of the rent.

The impact of the April 22, 2004 rule on Connecticut will be particularly severe given that that it has the sixth most expensive rental housing market in the nation and very few vacancies to meet the needs of low-income individuals. Coupled with the administration's proposed FY2005 budget cuts and block granting of the Section 8 program, which could adversely affect over 4,000 existing voucher holders in Connecticut, it is difficult to understand why HUD would be trying to balance its budget on the backs of low-income Americans.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development's April 22, 2004 notice is therefore just another salvo in the administration's war on the Section 8 program. Section 8 provides more than just rent assistance for low and moderate wage individuals in high cost housing markets. It also helps to sustain the employee base in urban markets, keeps wages for jobs in the service and manufacturing sectors competitive, enables corporations to remain and expand in their communities, and reduces the strain on vehicular transportation systems.

In an economy that is creating few jobs and producing scant affordable housing, HUD should be pursing policies to ensure that no family in America loses its housing assistance. HUD's April 22 notice should therefore be changed, so I urge my colleagues to support this urgent legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Bingaman, Clinton, Sarbanes, Reid, Akaka, Johnson, Stabenow, Corzine, Lautenberg and Durbin to introduce the ``Student Bill of Rights.'' This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of America's promise of equal opportunity for all.

The Student Bill of Rights attempts to ensure that every American child has an equal opportunity to receive a good education--including, highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology--to all students in all schools in a State. Current law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure that States comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the fairness of their public school systems.

Fifty years ago, Brown vs. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Fifty years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist in fact. Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, our education system remains largely separate and unequal.

All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy.

Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education.

This bill does not represent a radical notion. Last Congress, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation that Mr. Fattah offered in the other body and I offered here in the Senate. A radical notion is the idea that a country founded on the principle of equal opportunity for all can continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational opportunity for just a select few.

When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago, President Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. This year alone, the President's budget resolution underfunds the law by $9.4 billion. The President's budget also fails to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special education--leaving families and local communities struggling to make up the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced to make do with far less than other students. The Federal Government needs to become a more equal partner in funding education.

States need to do more, too. At the federal level we have created programs to help ensure that students from low-income communities start school healthy and ready to learn and to succeed in school once they get there. Programs such as Head Start, the School Lunch Program, The Children's Health Insurance Program and Title I, all assist in meeting the needs of low-income kids from their very first days.

In the end, this bill is about the simple fact that the quality of a child's education should not be determined by their zip code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Bingaman, Clinton, Sarbanes, Reid, Akaka, Johnson, Stabenow, Corzine, Lautenberg and Durbin to introduce the ``Student Bill of Rights.'' This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of America's promise of equal opportunity for all.

The Student Bill of Rights attempts to ensure that every American child has an equal opportunity to receive a good education--including, highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology--to all students in all schools in a State. Current law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure that States comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the fairness of their public school systems.

Fifty years ago, Brown vs. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Fifty years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist in fact. Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, our education system remains largely separate and unequal.

All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy.

Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education.

This bill does not represent a radical notion. Last Congress, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation that Mr. Fattah offered in the other body and I offered here in the Senate. A radical notion is the idea that a country founded on the principle of equal opportunity for all can continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational opportunity for just a select few.

When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago, President Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. This year alone, the President's budget resolution underfunds the law by $9.4 billion. The President's budget also fails to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special education--leaving families and local communities struggling to make up the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced to make do with far less than other students. The Federal Government needs to become a more equal partner in funding education.

States need to do more, too. At the federal level we have created programs to help ensure that students from low-income communities start school healthy and ready to learn and to succeed in school once they get there. Programs such as Head Start, the School Lunch Program, The Children's Health Insurance Program and Title I, all assist in meeting the needs of low-income kids from their very first days.

In the end, this bill is about the simple fact that the quality of a child's education should not be determined by their zip code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA. I want to start by thanking my fellow committee members and their staff for all of their hard work in putting together the bipartisan legislation we are considering today. While we may still have some disagreements about the bill, getting to this point in a bipartisan way is no small achievement, and I know we are all better for it.

Today, nothing pleases me more than to introduce, with my many of my colleagues, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. This bill will ensure that students with disabilities get the services they are entitled to while providing school systems with a greater degree of flexibility in implementing the law.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003 emphasizes accountability and improved results, improves monitoring and enforcement of the law, and works to reduce litigation by providing new opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns and disputes. The bill reduces paperwork by streamlining State and local paperwork requirements and clarifying that no information is required in an individualized education plan--IEP--beyond what Federal law requires. Like No Child Left Behind, this bill increases and improves opportunities for parental involvement and supports teachers in becoming ``highly qualified'' to do their jobs.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act provides earlier access to services and supports for infants, toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities. It also properly puts added emphasis on transition services so that special education students leave the system ready to be full productive citizens, whether they choose to go on to college or a job.

These are the things that the Senate bill does. Sadly, there is one glaring provision missing. This bill does not contain a provision to provide mandatory full-funding of IDEA; A provision that my colleagues Senator Harkin and Hagel tried to get incorporated into the bill yesterday.

Almost 30 years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to help States provide all children with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible. Since that time, this law has made an incredible difference in the lives of millions of American children and their families.

When we passed the law, we not only promised to bring special education students into the regular school system, we made a commitment to cover 40 percent of the State cost of servicing students with special needs over time. Thirty years later, we have yet to make good on this commitment. Today the Federal Government supports just over 18 percent of the cost of the program. That is not even half of the 40 percent we promised 29 years ago.

In order to rectify this situation, Senators Harkin and Hagel put together an amendment mandating full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This amendment failed yesterday 56-41. This saddens and frustrates me. Had it passed, I believe this amendment would have proven to have been the most important provision in this bill.

States and municipalities are bearing more than their share of responsibility for meeting disabled students' needs. In Connecticut, the State typically covers 32 percent of the costs of special education, local school districts cover 61 percent of the costs of special education, and the Federal Government covers only 7 percent.

Certainly States and municipalities are paying more than their share of special education costs. They need our help. Senator Harkin's and Hagel's amendment provided an opportunity to give them the help that they need.

Only mandatory full-funding of IDEA would demonstrate this body's commitment to universal access to education for all children, while helping entire communities ease their tax burden. As I have said before, I cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering, or we are a Nation at war, we cannot provide our children and their families with the critical educational resources they need. Investment in education is no less important in a weak economy or while our Nation is at war.

Education needs to be viewed as a national priority. In fact, education is the key to a healthy democracy, and absolutely essential to our long-term national and economic security.

Like Senators Harkin and Hagel, I support the idea of mandatory full- funding because it is good for students, families, schools, municipalities, states and the average American taxpayer. The funding fight on IDEA has been a long one over the years and I believe that schools have already waited to long.

Fundamentally, this is a good bill--one that will help guarantee the full potential of all our children while assisting school districts in their efforts to deliver special education services in an efficient manner. That is why I will support the underlying bill. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine and 34 co- sponsors to introduce the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will revitalize the FIRE Act grant program for an additional six years.

Senator DeWine and I authored the original FIRE Act four years ago. It has been a tremendous success, helping fire departments throughout our Nation purchase firefighting equipment as well as train firefighters. Nationwide, nearly $2 billion has been appropriated for FIRE Act grants throughout the country.

A report last year by the Federal Government found that 99 percent of grant recipients were satisfied with the FIRE Act's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that it had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the Nation.'' The FIRE Act grant initiative is truly a success story.

It is important to remember that the defenders of our Nation are not dressed only in combat fatigues. They wear firefighter uniforms. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and we all appreciate their efforts greatly.

The fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. As a country, we are fortunate to have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequipped to deal with many emergencies that may arise. According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. A June 2003 Council of Foreign Relations report authored by former Senator Warren Rudman further underscored this issue when it concluded that ``if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.''

The responsibilities of America's firefighters have also changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch form the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished.

Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are obeyed. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and chemical threats.

The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time.

According to the aforementioned U.S. Fire Service's 2002 national Needs Assessment study, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large- scale emergencies. The study found that: Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue at a collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope.

Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation.

An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities.

Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire.

These statistics are startling. The threats to which firefighters are expected to respond have far outgrown the ability of local governments to equip firefighters to do what these dangerous times require them to do. This situation demands continued action by the Senate to address these concerns, which is why Senator DeWine and I are introducing this legislation to further strengthen the FIRE Act grant initiative for the future.

Our bill builds on the recommendations given to us last February by the paid and volunteer fire services. First, we are authorizing $5.85 billion over the next six years for FIRE Act grant assistance. This amount represents a substantial increase over current law.

Second, we are both increasing the size of the awards and making the grants more equitable. Presently, the maximum amount of an award is $750,000, regardless of the size and type of department. For a large department, this cap has caused some difficulties because departments in smaller communities get a substantially larger share of the funds per capita. Our legislation will increase the size of the awards for large jurisdictions to $2.25 million, a threefold increase. For jurisdictions between 500,000 and one million people, the cap will be $1.5 million. For jurisdictions less than 500,000, the maximum award will be $1 million. The bill also empowers the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive these caps in instances of extraordinary need.

Third, we have restructured the matching requirements of current law. We have heard from the fire services that the current matching requirement imposed on local jurisdictions in many instances exceeds the funds available in their budgets. Our bill will reduce the non- Federal matching requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent for departments serving populations of more than 50,000 people. It will also cut the match by one-third for departments serving communities between 20,000 and 50,000 people, and by one-half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents.

Finally, we have enhanced the fire safety and fire prevention programs under the FIRE Act, and we have made volunteer, non-profit emergency medical service (EMS) providers that serve municipalities with separate fire and EMS departments eligible for FIRE Act grants. In addition, we tackle the leading cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks--by creating an incentive for fire departments to acquire life-saving automated external defibrillator equipment for every first-due emergency vehicle.

These are some of the provisions in the legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing. We look forward to working constructively with the other body in the coming months to fashion legislation that the entire fire service can support.

I am concerned, however, about a provision in the House bill that would seem to disadvantage paid fire departments over volunteer fire departments. This provision would prohibit a paid fire department from receiving FIRE Act assistance if it includes in its collective bargaining agreement a clause prohibiting its firefighters from serving as volunteer firefighters in another jurisdiction.

This provision would needlessly put Congress in the awkward position of dictating to local fire departments not only how to manage themselves, but what issues they can and cannot bargain over in their contract. The consequences of such a provision would be far-reaching. In fact, I am unaware of any other Federal grant initiative that imposes a limitation of such as this on collective agreements.

Of course, there are larger issues also at stake--namely, the fact that the Federal government does not provide for firefighters to bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it exists because firefighters have won the right at the state or local level. In fact, I have strongly supported separate legislation currently pending before Congress that would grant each and every firefighter the right to discuss workplace issues with their employer. It would therefore be inconsistent if firefighters are told what issues over which they can or cannot bargain at the same time that it is the current policy of the Federal Government that it is up to the states whether they can bargain in the first place. How can collective bargaining rights be restricted when they are not even granted?

The legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing does not include the House provision, because we are committed to ensuring that all firefighters are treated fairly, and have an equal opportunity to obtain the assistance they need to do their jobs safely.

In closing, it is important to recall the vital role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765.

Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who

died in the line of duty on that tragic day made our Nation proud. We will never allow their noble sacrifice to be forgotten.

On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know they have a duty to fulfill.

The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well, and to the citizens of our Nation who need the protection of the fire service. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to ensure that this important bipartisan homeland security legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine and 34 co- sponsors to introduce the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will revitalize the FIRE Act grant program for an additional six years.

Senator DeWine and I authored the original FIRE Act four years ago. It has been a tremendous success, helping fire departments throughout our Nation purchase firefighting equipment as well as train firefighters. Nationwide, nearly $2 billion has been appropriated for FIRE Act grants throughout the country.

A report last year by the Federal Government found that 99 percent of grant recipients were satisfied with the FIRE Act's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that it had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the Nation.'' The FIRE Act grant initiative is truly a success story.

It is important to remember that the defenders of our Nation are not dressed only in combat fatigues. They wear firefighter uniforms. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and we all appreciate their efforts greatly.

The fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. As a country, we are fortunate to have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequipped to deal with many emergencies that may arise. According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. A June 2003 Council of Foreign Relations report authored by former Senator Warren Rudman further underscored this issue when it concluded that ``if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.''

The responsibilities of America's firefighters have also changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch form the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished.

Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are obeyed. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and chemical threats.

The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time.

According to the aforementioned U.S. Fire Service's 2002 national Needs Assessment study, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large- scale emergencies. The study found that: Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue at a collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope.

Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation.

An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities.

Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire.

These statistics are startling. The threats to which firefighters are expected to respond have far outgrown the ability of local governments to equip firefighters to do what these dangerous times require them to do. This situation demands continued action by the Senate to address these concerns, which is why Senator DeWine and I are introducing this legislation to further strengthen the FIRE Act grant initiative for the future.

Our bill builds on the recommendations given to us last February by the paid and volunteer fire services. First, we are authorizing $5.85 billion over the next six years for FIRE Act grant assistance. This amount represents a substantial increase over current law.

Second, we are both increasing the size of the awards and making the grants more equitable. Presently, the maximum amount of an award is $750,000, regardless of the size and type of department. For a large department, this cap has caused some difficulties because departments in smaller communities get a substantially larger share of the funds per capita. Our legislation will increase the size of the awards for large jurisdictions to $2.25 million, a threefold increase. For jurisdictions between 500,000 and one million people, the cap will be $1.5 million. For jurisdictions less than 500,000, the maximum award will be $1 million. The bill also empowers the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive these caps in instances of extraordinary need.

Third, we have restructured the matching requirements of current law. We have heard from the fire services that the current matching requirement imposed on local jurisdictions in many instances exceeds the funds available in their budgets. Our bill will reduce the non- Federal matching requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent for departments serving populations of more than 50,000 people. It will also cut the match by one-third for departments serving communities between 20,000 and 50,000 people, and by one-half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents.

Finally, we have enhanced the fire safety and fire prevention programs under the FIRE Act, and we have made volunteer, non-profit emergency medical service (EMS) providers that serve municipalities with separate fire and EMS departments eligible for FIRE Act grants. In addition, we tackle the leading cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks--by creating an incentive for fire departments to acquire life-saving automated external defibrillator equipment for every first-due emergency vehicle.

These are some of the provisions in the legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing. We look forward to working constructively with the other body in the coming months to fashion legislation that the entire fire service can support.

I am concerned, however, about a provision in the House bill that would seem to disadvantage paid fire departments over volunteer fire departments. This provision would prohibit a paid fire department from receiving FIRE Act assistance if it includes in its collective bargaining agreement a clause prohibiting its firefighters from serving as volunteer firefighters in another jurisdiction.

This provision would needlessly put Congress in the awkward position of dictating to local fire departments not only how to manage themselves, but what issues they can and cannot bargain over in their contract. The consequences of such a provision would be far-reaching. In fact, I am unaware of any other Federal grant initiative that imposes a limitation of such as this on collective agreements.

Of course, there are larger issues also at stake--namely, the fact that the Federal government does not provide for firefighters to bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it exists because firefighters have won the right at the state or local level. In fact, I have strongly supported separate legislation currently pending before Congress that would grant each and every firefighter the right to discuss workplace issues with their employer. It would therefore be inconsistent if firefighters are told what issues over which they can or cannot bargain at the same time that it is the current policy of the Federal Government that it is up to the states whether they can bargain in the first place. How can collective bargaining rights be restricted when they are not even granted?

The legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing does not include the House provision, because we are committed to ensuring that all firefighters are treated fairly, and have an equal opportunity to obtain the assistance they need to do their jobs safely.

In closing, it is important to recall the vital role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765.

Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who

died in the line of duty on that tragic day made our Nation proud. We will never allow their noble sacrifice to be forgotten.

On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know they have a duty to fulfill.

The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well, and to the citizens of our Nation who need the protection of the fire service. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to ensure that this important bipartisan homeland security legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. President, I would also like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article from today's Washington Post. It was on page A-3 carried over to page A-6, and it worries me deeply because it goes to what I am fearful may have had some underlying and undercurrent effect on the events of the last several days. It seems to speak to the extent that we are dehumanizing and minimizing and casting this pall of accusation over an entire religious group in the world.

Senator Biden pointed out in his remarks here this morning that 1.2 billion people are observers of the Muslim faith.

And today is a national day of prayer in the U.S. It began with a resolution adopted in the Truman administration in 1952 and has been followed every year since then. When Harry Truman signed the congressional resolution he called for ``a suitable day each year other than a Sunday to be set aside for common prayer.'' Every administration since 1952 has taken that day out of the calendar year to focus on common prayer. And it was under the Reagan administration that the first Thursday of May was set aside as the permanent day each year.

I cannot tell you how disturbing it was to read in this morning's paper a quote from one of the organizers of this year's day of prayer. The quote was buried away, but let me read it, because it actually goes to the heart of what we are talking about. We are told here, this morning, that they would make ``no apologies'' in today's celebration of prayer ``about the exclusion of Muslims and others outside of the `Judeo-Christian tradition' from ceremonies planned by the task force on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the country.''

``They are free to have their own national day of prayer if they want to,'' she said.

Well, if you have that attitude about common prayer today, and you exclude religious groups from a national day of prayer, then what have we come to?

I might point out as well, because the Presiding Officer will appreciate this--my wife pointed this out to me this morning--in Salt Lake City, Mormons have complained that they are not allowed to lead prayers during today's observance. I don't know how you have a national prayer day in Salt Lake City and exclude the Mormons from participating.

But this sort of attitude where we are going to selectively choose religious groups that can be involved, and the particular reference here to the exclusion of anyone who might be of the Muslim faith, is troubling to me because it is that sort of an attitude that contributes to the dehumanization of people and casts aspersions on an entire group of people.

Indeed, as we talk about what has occurred as a result of the actions of a few bad apples, I point out the story in today's newspaper because I think that the attitude of exclusion expressed in the story contributes to an environment, if you will, that somehow makes these abuses permissible in the minds of some--that somehow these people are undeserving of the kind of treatment that every other human ought to receive--particularly in the hands of a nation that prides itself on being governed by the rule of law and which respects individual rights.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article in today's Washington Post entitled ``Bush to Appear On Christian TV For Prayer Day'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.