Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. 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.

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

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

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

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

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

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. DODD. I have modified it, yes.

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to do that.

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD. 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.

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

Mr. DODD. I have no difficulty with----

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. 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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. 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. DODD

Mr. DODD. 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.