Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would be so happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I am proud to have their support. There can be no stronger advocate of the strongest possible military than Senators Lieberman and Graham. We know that. We have seen them here. They are supporters because they understand, as I do, that it weakens our country when we do these kinds of deals. The amendment that my friend has offered is fine; there is nothing wrong with it, but it does not get to the heart of this particular contract. It is general, whereas the amendment I have offered--and, by the way, it is just a sense of the Senate. It is nice. But what I have offered says that if the Secretary of Defense finds that the Army Corps has not, in fact, put the rest of this contract out for bid by the date of September 30--and they have promised to do so by August 31--then they have to tell us why they did not bid out this contract. I am going to put up a chart that shows a copy of the congressional notification of this contract. It looks scary when one sees it because there is lots in it, but I have highlighted in yellow the things my colleagues ought to know, because maybe they do not know this. I want to compliment the minority ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform in the House, Henry Waxman, for doing so much of the research. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet called the Bush Administration's Contracts with Halliburton, put out by the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, it is very unusual. When we ask them, they say: We are just going to use this contract to put out the fires. Then it turned out, thank God, there were not that many fires; and we thought, OK, fine, it was a sole source.

Mrs. BOXER. Legally, as I look at it, it says estimated face value. Here it says ``bids received: One.'' ``Bids solicited, sole source.'' This is stunning. I ask the President how much time remains on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. The estimated face value.

Mrs. BOXER. I am trying to say what you stated. If Halliburton or subsidiaries wish to do more work in Iraq, let them stand shoulder to shoulder, toe to toe with every other company in this country. I have heard from so many businesspeople who are outraged at this. That is why the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Lautenberg and you and others is a probusiness amendment; it is a protaxpayer amendment and a proconsumer amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. That is all I am doing. I say to my friend, I can tell from the sound of his voice, he is a little incredulous that this has not been accepted by the other side. This is such a simple, straightforward commonsense kind of approach. We are saying that this was not right. The Army Corps has said they will fix it. They have given us a date; they will fix it. All we are saying is, if you do not, we want to hold you accountable. We want a report.

Mrs. BOXER. Another excellent point. I am happy my friend from New Jersey is back. I was losing my sense of humor. I am glad he is back. This chart shows the congressional notification of this contract. The light of day never came to this until way after it was issued. Now we finally got it after the fifth task order. Estimated value, $7 billion. They called it a bridge contract, by the way, when they started out, and they started to let out these task orders.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct, they have. In a letter to Representative Waxman, who has kind of uncovered this entire matter--if it was not for him, this thing might be buried somewhere in somebody's drawer--they said, we are now completing--this is the Department of the Army: We are now completing the competitive acquisition strategy and plan, preparing the statement of work, and preparing the solicitation that will request proposals to perform work. The solicitation will be advertised on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site by late spring or early summer and the estimate for the award of the contract is approximately the end of August. So they have given a date by which they say they will be able to take the rest of this contract and bid it out. By the way, there is nothing to say that the Halliburton subsidiary, Brown & Root, can't compete on the rest of the contract when it goes out. It ought to be open.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and Senator Warner for working out this arrangement whereby we can have a definite vote on two alternatives that deal with, in my opinion, competitive bidding-- that is what we are talking about--in the rebuilding of Iraq. I send my amendment to the desk, and I ask that the amendment be read.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this time, does my friend want to bring his second-degree amendment to the desk or, rather, his substitute? Amendment No. 826

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. My particular amendment that will be voted on is more than a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate plus it is a requirement that if the Department of Defense does not meet its own stated goal of having a fully competitive contract in place by August 31, 2003, to replace this boondoggle, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to Congress by September 30, 2003, detailing the reasons for allowing this sole-source contract to continue.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I don't know whether I will object. I would like a chance to look at it. I just got a chance to look at it a minute ago. So if you could put the unanimous consent off for a couple of minutes so I can take a look at it?

Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator wants to give me 2 minutes, I am just looking at it now. You can read it to me or I can get a copy and read it myself. Either way is fine. I do not have it in front of me.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am just going to chat with my friend for a minute.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the spirit of my amendment is very clear. I am very resolute about it. I appreciate the fact we are going to have a vote on the Warner first-degree amendment and the Boxer amendment. All the years I was in the House of Representatives, part of the time I served on the Armed Services Committee. I am pleased to see my friend from Illinois here because together during the years I served on the Armed Services Committee, we took on the issue of procurement reform. I am very pleased to say that as a result of the work that many of us did, we were able to--and it was Berkley Bedell, if my colleague remembers; there were a number of us--we were able to make sure there was competition at the Pentagon. Competition is the name of the game. It is supposed to be the name of the game in America. When I see any agency turning away from competitive bidding, unless there is a good reason to do so--and I might say, if it is an emergency, this is a good reason, but beyond that, there is no reason to award a contract without going to bid, without considering competitive bids. What happens--and I feel really deeply about this--when the taxpayers of this country and the businesses of this country that are playing by the rules see such a contract given to one special company, it is very bad, in my opinion, for our country. It is very bad for our fighting men and women who risk their life and limb. Let me tell you what I mean. As a result of a sole-source contract that was given to a subsidiary of Halliburton, these are some of the headlines that appeared across the country. I will let my colleagues judge, and I will let the people judge whether these kinds of headlines are good for our country and good for the morale of our troops. Here is one from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Secret Halliburton deal endangers U.S. credibility. That is May 8, 2003, in a southern paper. Here is one from the Montreal Gazette: Halliburton contract bigger than reported; Linked to Cheney; Role has grown beyond fighting Iraq oil fires. This one was in the Houston Chronicle on May 8, 2003: Halliburton contract stokes new controversy. Here is one from the L.A. Times, May 8: Shadow over the oilfields; The administration's no-bid contract with Halliburton subsidiary gives the impression of a grab at Iraqi resources for American business. Another headline in the L.A. Times on April 11: More flack on Halliburton deal; The revelation that the Pentagon contract is worth up to $7 billion is more fuel for critics who say it should have been open to bidding. And USA Today, April 11: Halliburton oilfield deal raises questions. The point is, we should do everything we can for the taxpayers of this country to make them feel comfortable that when there is work at home or abroad, every business in this country gets a chance to compete for the work. Why? Because we all know if there is no competition, the price could soar. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to my amendment Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Durbin.

Mrs. BOXER. I think my friend, a very successful businessman, has put his finger on it: It is business unusual.

Mrs. BOXER. I prefer to have it as a first-degree amendment. It will be much better, and I appreciate that.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, in support of this fine nominee, To support Consuelo ``Connie'' Callahan to be a judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Callahan is a native Californian, born in Palo Alto. She is a graduate of Stanford University and the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific. She was the first female and the first Hispanic judge to sit on the San Joaquin County Superior Court. She currently serves on the Third District Court of Appeals located in Sacramento. She has been a champion of protecting children. When she served as a prosecutor, she focused on major felony prosecutions in the area of child abuse. She has received public recognition for her work on this issue. She also is a former board member and President of the San Joaquin County Child Abuse Prevention Center. I applaud her involvement in this very serious cause. I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to support this nominee. In addition to having the support of both of her home- state senators, Judge Callahan received unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this well-qualified, mainstream nominee.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Violence Against Children Act of 2003. The legislation, modeled on the successful Violence Against Women Act, will both toughen Federal penalties for crimes against children and assist local communities in their efforts to fight violence against children. It has been endorsed by over 100 prominent individuals and organizations. We were all horrified by the tragic murders of Samantha Runion and Danielle van Dam. We were horrified by the kidnaping of Elizabeth Smart, Erica Pratt, and Nichole Taylor Timmons who were snatched right from their homes. We were horrified by the kidnaping and rape of Jacqueline Marris and Tamara Brooks. But there are thousands more stories we do not hear--thousands of children who each year are victims of sexual molestation, kidnaping, murder--thousands of children whose stories do not make the nightly news--thousands of children and thousands of families who suffer in silence and often without help. In fact, 71 percent of all sex crime victims are under the age of 18--and 38 percent of all kidnaping victims are under age 18. Those between the ages of 12 and 17 are over two times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than adults. And as alarming as those statistics are, according to a study published in 1999, only 28 percent of all crimes against children are actually reported. While we are horrified by these and other stories, we must not let them paralyze us. We must do for children what we have done on behalf of women, by changing attitudes and changing the culture. The Violence Against Children Act would create a new Federal criminal statute for willfully injuring or attempting to injure any person under the age of 18. Those who injure a child or try to will be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined. And if the crime is kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or murder, the maximum penalty will be life in prison. In addition to enhanced penalties for crimes against children, the Violence Against Children Act provides Federal assistance--including technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance--to any State, Indian tribe, or local government that requests assistance with a violent felony against a child. The bill also establishes a grant program to help local police and prosecutors to strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution for these crimes. This Act builds upon the Protect Act, recently signed into law, by requiring that States have an Amber Alert system to help locate missing children in order to qualify for the local law enforcement grants. In addition, to cut down on the number of abused and neglected children, states are required to have a Safe Haven program that would allow parents to leave newborn babies in hospital emergency rooms, anonymously and with no fear of penalty. These requirements will ensure that states take action to improve systems that can protect our Nation's children. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Biden, who I teamed up with over a decade ago in introducing the Violence Against Women Act. And Representative Millender-McDonald is the sponsor of the House bill. This is a critical issue to safeguard our children and youth nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section summary of the bill and a list of those who have endorsed it.

Mr. BOXER

Mr. BOXER. Mr. President, I support passage of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. Our military men and women can rest assured that the Congress of the United States stands behind them--especially when they are doing so much for this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout world. I appreciate their dedication and service to this grateful nation. That is why it is important to support the many good provisions that are in this bill--especially a well-earned pay raise and improved benefits for our uniformed men and women. I applaud the work of Senator Warner and Senator Levin on these quality of life issues and am especially pleased that they supported my amendment to study how we can provide additional benefits to those who are so frequently deployed that they are only home for hours at a time. This bill also includes a provision to address the issue of children who are left behind when both military parents are deployed to a combat zone--an important priority of mine since I was a member of the House of Representatives. I am also pleased that the Congress passed my amendment to provide fairness to taxpayers and businesses by making sure that the Department of Defense replaces its sole source contract with Halliburton to provide oil related services in Iraq with a contract that is subject to full and open competition. However, this does not mean I support everything in this bill. Most alarmingly are the provisions in the legislation that advance the research and development of new high-tech nuclear weapons. These weapons will not make us more secure, but instead encourage other nations to join us in a new nuclear arms race. I urge the President to reverse his dangerous policy of advocating the development of new ``usable'' nuclear weapons. I am also disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to address the issue of a future round of base closures. California was disproportionally impacted by previous rounds of the base closure process. Even years later, my state continues to wait for the Department of Defense to meet its responsibility and provide funding for the environmental cleanup of former military installations. For these reasons, I believe the next round of base closures should not go forward in 2005 as scheduled. It is my hope that these unfortunate shortcomings in the bill can be addressed either in a conference committee with the House or during consideration of the fiscal year 2004 defense appropriations bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I have no objection to withdrawing my amendment because it has, in fact, been made a part of the Warner amendment.