Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. When we look at this congressional notification, which was very late in getting there because there were already five task orders under this Halliburton contract, finally they gave this information over: They have obligated first $17 million, then $6.7 million, $22 million, $5 million, and $24 million, with no competitive bidding. Originally it was, oh, they have to put out the oil fires. Okay. We understand that. But what about the rest? The estimated face value of this contract is $7 billion. What do we spend on all of our afterschool programs, I say to my colleagues, in 1 year? A billion dollars. How many kids are waiting in line to get into that program? Millions. We cannot afford it, but we can afford to give a sole-source $7 billion to one company named Halliburton. We all know the power of that company. I want my colleagues to see I am not making this up when I say this was a sole-source contract. Estimated face value, $7 billion. Bids solicited, sole-source procurement; bids received, one. What a happy day for Halliburton that was. The subsidiary of Halliburton is Brown & Root. That is the corporation that is the subsidiary of Halliburton that received this contract. One might say, well, maybe this is such a great company, maybe there is a reason why we would go sole source with this company. Well, GAO has found serious problems with contract work that Brown & Root did for the Army in the Balkans. In 1997, GAO found that the Army was unable to ensure that the contractor adequately controlled costs. For example, Brown & Root was charging the Army $86 to fly in $14 sheets of plywood from the United States of America. The Army official in charge was shocked when he found out. In 2000, GAO found more evidence that Brown & Root was inflating the Government's costs and its products by, for example, overstaffing work crews and providing more goods and services than necessary. And how about this: Brown & Root was the subject of a criminal investigation for overbilling the Government on another contract. According to a former employee, the company routinely and systematically inflated contract prices it submitted to the Government for work it performed on a military base in California, and Brown & Root paid $2 million to settle that case. Brown & Root's parent company Halliburton has its own problems. The SEC is investigating accounting practices of the company. The company recently restated its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002 and Halliburton has admitted paying $2.4 million in bribes to a Nigerian official in an attempt to gain favorable tax treatment in the country. So I say to my colleagues, why on Earth would the Army Corps give this company this incredible sole-source contract to the tune of $7 billion? We have had a series of answers to that question. At first we were told this was just for emergencies. Remember those newspaper articles, just for emergencies? Now we are finding out it goes well beyond emergencies. In March 2003, the administration awarded Brown & Root a contract to repair and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration has been reluctant to provide complete or even basic information about the contract. Remember, the contract was awarded March 8 but it was not publicly disclosed until March 24. The Corps did not reveal until April 8, in response to a letter from Representative Waxman, that the contract had a potential value of up to $7 billion. It was not until May 2, in response to another request from Representative Waxman, the Corps disclosed the scope of the contract was significantly broader than previously provided information had suggested. We have a chance to end this embarrassment today. If we have a strong vote on the Boxer-Lieberman-Lautenberg-Durbin-Graham of Florida-Clinton amendment--and I hope many other colleagues will join. I hope many on the other side will join--what are we saying? We are saying if they do not correct the problem as they have stated they would do--and they have stated they would in fact end this sole-source contract and they would go out for bid by the end of August--all we are saying is send us a report, tell us the reason why you are carrying on. Under Senator Warner's amendment, which I have no objection to at all, and I am going to vote for it, let's hear what it says. It says it is the sense of the Senate--which, by the way, has no force of law-- that the DOD should fully comply with the Competition in Contracting Act for any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and should conduct a full and open competition for performing work needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry as soon as practicable. I am not a lawyer, but I can tell my colleagues when we see the words ``as soon as practicable,'' get nervous.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey and retain the remainder of my time.

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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague from Virginia. I think when the Senate can work together, when we can cross over, one side to the other, we do good work. What we did is literally take one half of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia and one half of mine. What is important to me is, if the Senate will speak in one voice, we will have a vote. I trust it will pass with a very wide margin, if not unanimously. The Senate will go on record, if we pass the Warner-Boxer amendment, as saying the following: We don't approve of this sole-source contract continuing, that we want to make sure the Army Corps, which says it is going to end this contract, is held accountable; that they are going to have to let us know if by August 30 they don't end the sole-source contract, and every 60 days thereafter they are going to have to let us know why they are continuing a $7 billion sole-source contract. That is all I wanted when I stood up a couple hours ago. That is all I want now. I am grateful to my friend for being openminded. It was a good debate. I also say to my leader on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, the ranking member, how helpful he has been to me. When I started, I had a proposal that might never have seen the light of day. He worked with me to make it relevant, make it work. Again, to Senators Graham and Lieberman and Clinton and Durbin and Lautenberg, before we looked like we had a winner here, they were with me. This is really very nostalgic for me. In my time in the House, I worked on the Armed Services Committee on military procurement before. I had hoped I wouldn't have to be standing here worried about military procurement, but it looks like it comes back like a bad dream. I am hopeful the action we take this afternoon, just to let the Army Corps know we are all watching, Republicans and Democrats, will have a salutary effect on the termination of the sole-source contract and fair and open bidding. The taxpayers deserve no less. The business community deserves no less. Consumers deserve no less. Frankly, the people of Iraq deserve no less because we are trying to rebuild their country in the most efficient way we can. I thank my friend again, Senator Warner. I urge a yea vote on the Warner-Boxer amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I just want to say to my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Washington State--who has been such a leader on women's issues, family issues, and children's issues--and to my friend from Illinois, who is in the Chamber, who I know is also concerned about this--this is really the first time I have ever seen a circumstance quite like this. When the Senator from North Dakota says it is putting the Senator from Washington at a disadvantage, I have a question for the Senator from Washington. When the Senator from North Dakota says she is put at a disadvantage, let me just say it goes far beyond that. Who are being put at a disadvantage here, I would say, are the women who serve in the Armed Forces. My God, we lost them in Iraq. We all know the story of Jessica Lynch. We all revere the men and women in uniform. And in this bill, we know, unless my friend gets a chance--a chance--to remove a restriction, a woman in the military who finds herself in a very troubling situation, who wants to exercise her legal rights, a health care right that is legal and constitutional--she cannot even use her own money and have a safe abortion. This is the fact. I say to my friend, yes, my friend is being inconvenienced, but I know she stands up for the women in the military tonight. It is a very sad night to hear that the most relevant of amendments that deals with women in the military cannot be offered. I say to my friend--because I will ask her a question--does she not believe this is a slap from the Senate to the women who are serving so bravely in uniform?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am very concerned that the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act provide $15 million of funding for the continued study into the feasibility of developing a robust nuclear earth penetrator. The robust nuclear earth penetrator is a bomb designed to bury itself deep into the ground before it explodes. This is not a low-yield nuclear weapon. According to reports, this weapon would be five times more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima--and would have an even greater impact because a nuclear weapon's force is multiplied when its shock wave penetrates the crust of the Earth. The aim of those who support this research into the robust nuclear earth penetrator believe that a usable nuclear weapon will be able to destroy deeply buried targets with few casualties and little fallout. Unfortunately, science is not on their side. Last year, a number of scientists, including Sidney Drell of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center wrote, ``an earth-penetrating warhead with a yield sufficient to destroy a buried target cannot penetrate deeply enough to fully contain the nuclear explosion; it would necessarily produce an intense and deadly radioactive fallout. Thus, it is not technically possible to use nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried targets without at the same time causing significant radioactive contamination and collateral damage if used in an urban area.'' Another argument pushed by those in favor of these nuclear weapons is that they would be useful in destroying stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. While a nuclear weapon could, in fact, incinerate biological and chemical weapons if the nuclear blast is nearby, it is unlikely that we will ever have perfect intelligence about the location of these weapons. Our continued inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a perfect illustration. In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that the robust nuclear earth penetrator could actually disperse biological and chemical weapons by spreading them into the resulting crater and surrounding air. These weapons are not usable weapons. Finally, our continued development of new uses for nuclear weapons will only spurn other nations to do the same. As Rose Gottemoeller, the former Deputy Secretary of Energy, has said, ``I think people abroad will interpret this as part of a really enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to renuclearize. And I think definitely there's going to be an impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the world.'' The war in Iraq showed our Nation has overwhelming superiority when it comes to conventional forces. It doesn't make any sense to promote the development of nuclear weapons and signal to the world that weapons of mass destruction have other uses other than a means of last resort. I urge the passage of the Dorgan amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Rabbi Martin S. Weiner, who is retiring after 31 years of dedicated service to the community. Rabbi Weiner, a San Francisco native, was educated in the city's public schools. He received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of California at Berkeley and his rabbinical training at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati. In 1964, Rabbi Weiner was ordained from the College-Institute, where he earned a master of arts in Hebrew Letters with honors. Rabbi Weiner came to Temple Sherith Israel in 1972, where he serves as the Senior Rabbi. Rabbi Weiner also is the immediate past president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Reform movement's rabbinical union. In addition, Rabbi Weiner sits on the board of the Reform Pension Plan and the Bay Area Chapter of the American Jewish Committee. Among his many accomplishments, Rabbi Weiner has served as president of the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis and as chair of the San Francisco Interfaith Council. He has also served as vice president, treasurer, and a member of the Central Conference of American Rabbis Executive Board, in addition to the Jewish Community Federation, the National Commission on Reform Jewish Education, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and the Jewish Family & Children's Service. Rabbi Weiner also bravely offered his services during the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center. He comforted those in need and aided several traumatized patients at New York City's Beth Israel Hospital. Rabbi Weiner's service to the Jewish community, both in San Francisco and nationwide, is truly inspiring. I am confident that, even in retirement, Rabbi Martin Weiner will continue to inspire people with his humanity and dedication.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to increase penalties for terrorists using false identification. This legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress. It mandates prison time for anyone who produces, transfers, possesses, or uses a fake ID in connection with terrorism. Currently, in Federal law, there is no mandatory imprisonment for the production, transfer, possession, or use of a fake ID. This is true under any circumstances, even those involving terrorist acts. This, to me, seems wrong. If an individual at any time facilitates an act of terrorism by providing someone with a fake ID, making a fake ID, possessing a fake ID, or using that fake ID, that person should go to jail. Period. My bill make sure that principle is reflected in Federal law. Second, my bill closes the loophole that provides enhanced penalties for fake IDs used in connection with acts of international terrorism, but not domestic terrorism. My bill makes sure that fake ID offenses related to domestic terrorism get the same enhanced punishment as those relating to international terrorism.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to increase penalties for terrorists using false identification. This legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress. It mandates prison time for anyone who produces, transfers, possesses, or uses a fake ID in connection with terrorism. Currently, in Federal law, there is no mandatory imprisonment for the production, transfer, possession, or use of a fake ID. This is true under any circumstances, even those involving terrorist acts. This, to me, seems wrong. If an individual at any time facilitates an act of terrorism by providing someone with a fake ID, making a fake ID, possessing a fake ID, or using that fake ID, that person should go to jail. Period. My bill make sure that principle is reflected in Federal law. Second, my bill closes the loophole that provides enhanced penalties for fake IDs used in connection with acts of international terrorism, but not domestic terrorism. My bill makes sure that fake ID offenses related to domestic terrorism get the same enhanced punishment as those relating to international terrorism.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for this one-time infusion of private sector dollars to create jobs and encourage business investment in plants and equipment. This infusion will happen immediately. I think it is what we need to fight for because our people are hurting out there. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 10 seconds.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Ensign for his leadership on the Invest in the USA Act. As we said earlier, this infusion of cash will provide an immediate and much needed boost to the economy. Over the next year, it is estimated that this legislation, which is included in this bill as an amendment, will bring $140 billion in foreign earnings back into the United States. As my friend is aware, under our amendment, which is the Invest in the USA Act of 2003, these funds are to be used as a source for worker hiring and training; infrastructure; research, and development; capital investments; or the financial stabilization of the corporation for the purposes of job retention or creation. Any attempt to use these funds to increase executive pay would be a violation of the intent of this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I feel very badly about what we are doing tonight. We are passing an inferior bill that was passed by the other body so that the President can hold in his hand a piece of AIDS legislation. How better it would be if it were a fine piece of legislation, if it were a more thoughtful piece of legislation, if it were a more effective piece of legislation. But the fix is in. All amendments are being voted down because of the President's schedule. Well, I didn't get elected from the largest State in the Union, that has been fighting the AIDS epidemic ever since Senator Feinstein was a mayor and I was on the county board of supervisors, to rush through something like this. I think it is really very sad that we are being governed by the schedule of the executive branch. I want to tell you very quickly what my amendment does. It restores a focus on AIDS orphans. You cannot think of anything more tragic. AIDS orphans were the focus of the bills that passed the Senate before. They are no longer the focus. More than 10 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. It is estimated that, by the year 2010, there will be over 40 million children left orphaned by this horrendous disease. That is a population so large that it is more than California's 37 million residents. It is 8 Wisconsins or 70 North Dakotas. You get the point. In the vast majority of cases, single women and young girls, 16 years old, 17 years old, 15 years old, are taking responsibility for the care of these orphaned children. Just read about it. It is heartbreaking. All my amendment says is that a specific plan will be developed by the AIDS coordinator and implemented to provide resources, especially to households headed by an individual who is caring for one or more AIDS orphans. This bill is silent on this point. We do nothing specific about this. This bill is vague. Even though you have committed to vote against everything, it will take only 2 minutes for the President to call Tom DeLay and say: Help the orphans, vote for this amendment. I hope we will all vote aye.

Mrs. BOXER. You said 20 minutes. I need 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Ten minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I don't need that much time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know we are all exhausted and I am really sorry to be here for an extra few minutes. I feel I don't deserve to really be in the Senate because we are talking about global AIDS, which is turning into a weapon of mass destruction. I feel very bad about what we are doing here tonight. First, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am voting against this bill because I came to the Senate to represent California families and this tax cut for the wealthy elite is not in their interest. It contradicts the basic American values of fairness, responsibility, and opportunity. We are now in the longest period of continued job losses since the Great Depression. In the first 3 months of this year alone, America lost another half a million jobs. As result, 8.8 million people are unemployed today. That is 2.8 million more than when President Bush took office. Most troubling, 1.9 million of those workers have been out of work for more than a year and a half. But instead of targeting the majority of the benefits to a majority of the people, this bill targets its benefits to the very top. There is not a single responsible economist I know who thinks this tax package will get us out of the terrible economic condition we are in. In fact, 11 Nobel laureate economists and hundreds of others have published an open letter saying that passing these tax cuts ``will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the Government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research.'' Those Nobel laureates also added that the tax cuts would generate further inequalities in after-tax income. The reason for that is that this package is skewed to those who do not need it. That kind of windfall for the wealthy is bad policy. That is why I supported the Democratic alternative and other amendments that would have spread the benefits of the bill to more Americans. The Democratic Plan for Jobs, Opportunity and Prosperity would put over 1 million people back to work by the end of 2004. The Democratic plan would provide three times more economic boost right now than the Republican plan. At the same time, the Democratic plan would put us back on the path to fiscal responsibility. The Democratic plan would have cut taxes for every working American, providing an average benefit of $1,630 to a family of four making $50,000 a year. And it would have provided real assistance to the 8.8 million Americans who are currently unemployed. Our plan would have created a new credit for every working American, which will provide $300 for each adult in a family and $300 for the first two children. We wanted to accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit, accelerate the elimination of the marriage penalty, and extend and expand unemployment insurance for those looking for work, including the 1 million people who have already exhausted their benefits. Also, the Democratic plan would have sparked growth by helping the States sustain vital services during the economic downturn and encouraging small businesses to invest. As part of the Democratic proposal, we proposed a 50 percent tax credit in 2003, worth $8 billion, to help small businesses pay their share of insurance premiums. And very important for California, our plan would have provided $40 billion in immediate aid to State and local governments. We also proposed tripling the amount of investments small businesses can write off immediately from $25,000 to $75,000 in 2003. I was deeply troubled that my colleagues cared so much for the elite few that they voted against a number of amendments that would have helped working Americans. They rejected an effort to cut taxes on social security benefits for middle-income seniors. They rejected expanding the child tax credit. They supported raising taxes on Americans working abroad. They fought efforts to increase tax benefits to help families pay for higher education. And they fought every effort to get more meaningful assistance to the States in this time of crisis. There were two bright spots during the Senate consideration of this legislation. First, the Senate passed the Invest in the USA Act amendment that Senator Ensign and I introduced. It will create a one- time incentive for U.S. companies to bring $140 billion dollars in funds earned abroad back to the U.S. for job creation, investment in plants and equipment, and for other economically stimulative uses. The Senate also adopted an amendment offered to crack down on delinquent parents who do not pay child support. My amendment, which is based on bipartisan legislation that I introduced, penalizes those who do not pay the child support that they owe. Despite these two improvements, the bill--and some destructive amendments, such as an expansion of the dividend exclusion--is deeply flawed, unfair, and fiscally dangerous--creating massive deficits, which will hurt economic growth.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will only take about a minute of the Senate's time to explain this amendment, which I am very happy has been cleared on both sides. This amendment is based on a bill that Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote, and it is a money raiser. It actually raises, over the 10-year period, in excess of $400 million. What it does, in essence, is say this: If a parent who is ordered to pay child support fails to pay that child support, and fails to pay at least 50 percent of that child support then that delinquent parent would have to add the amount that he or she was supposed to pay to child support to his or her gross income. Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due, and more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. This amendment will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need.