A bill to establish a National Commission on Digestive Diseases.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 1003. Senator Miller and I have taken the lead in encouraging a culture of cooperation of all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal, State, and local--and seek to build an immigration law enforcement system that uses unified

databases for information sharing from one level to another.

The subject matter of the bill introduced today is one I care very deeply about--the ability of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily aid the Federal Government in the Enforcement of immigration law. Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources toward immigration law enforcement, it is simply about their authority to participate in immigration law enforcement if they so choose.

I am convinced that our ability to successfully enforce our immigration laws is a test of whether we will be a Nation governed by laws.

Many of the immigration reforms enacted by this Congress since 9/11 have been aimed at fixing the first half of our broken immigration system, the visa issuance process that allowed terrorists to enter our country under the guise of legality.

It is now time to look at the second half of our broken immigration system--the half that allows people to remain here illegally for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they came here.

We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it is also clear Americans do not feel the same way about illegal immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration.

A RoperASW poll published in March of this year titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree, and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require State and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS, now ICE, illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.

Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American population. It is important to note that those numbers were collected on requiring state and local action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill that is about volunteer State and local action would yield even stronger support.

America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law. Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

In the world of immigration laws, a facade of enforcement that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to be a Nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real effect on the lives of the people they govern.

Our illegal alien population is at a record high. The lack of immigration enforcement in our country's interior has resulted in 8-10 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal aliens to disappear inside our borders.

Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''-- people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not shown up for their hearings.

An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here.

The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.''

The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a mere 2,000 interior agents inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement solely to them will guarantee failure.

State and local police, a force 650,000 strong, are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is critical to the success of our immigration system.

For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement need clear authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC needs to contain critical immigration related information that can be accessed on the roadside; 3. Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to tell them to just let them go; 4. the Institutional Removal Program has to be expanded so that criminal aliens are detained after their State sentences until deportation, they can't be released back into the community just to be searched for by federal officials at a later date; and 5. critically needed federal bedspace has to be given to DHS for they can not guarantee effective removal without adequate detention space.

The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Miller and I are introducing today will do all of those things.

Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to author this bill.

A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell me that they had been shut out of the system and felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population.

As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard the same story--``we have given up calling the INS because INS tells us we have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even come pick them up.''

Even worse is that Alabama police were told that the aliens could not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even though I thought the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was clear. If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this authority, Congress needs to fix that, which is what this bill will do.

Only two circuits have expressly ruled on State and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a preexisting general authority, held that nothing in federal law precludes the police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a ``State trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 f.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984).

As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general authority of State or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.,'' United States v. Vasquez-Alvares, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``State and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions `to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.' '' United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable.

It appears that the Ninth Circuit started the confusion regarding the distinction between civil and criminal violations in Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the civil provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and therefore only the federal government has the power to enforce civil violations. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC.

Why was the Federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to just let illegal aliens go?

To be fair, ICE probably does not have the manpower or detention space to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000 appropriated detention beds, ICE tells my office that they do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they apprehend; instead, they have to give first priority to detaining the worst of the worst--individuals such as convicted felon aliens.

It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key element of effective removal, we do not even detail all illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes, even convicted of felonies, before removal. Last February, in a report titled ``the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed--35 percent of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state sponsors of terrorism.''

These percentages have not changed substantially since 1996, when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not detained are never removed.

But we cannot lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal aliens that they have space to detain. They are using all of the bedspace that they have and are releasing people that should be detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would add the critical bedspace DHS needs to fulfill its mission of interior enforcement.

The third problem that has been brought to my attention is the inadequate way we share immigration information with State and local police. We have databases full or information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to state and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a wanted by DHS.

Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and local police cannot quickly and accurately identify who they have detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.''

State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal information in the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database, which is maintained by the FBI. They can and routinely do access the NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect.

An NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an instant fingerprint scanner in his car.

Separately, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which makes immigration information available to State and local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the time to perform.

The Hart Rudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``650,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with 650,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void.

If State and local police are not accessing the immigration information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way to get the information to them, through systems that are used to using. Our bill will get information to them through the system that are already using--the NCIC.

As part of its Alien Absconder Initiative, ICE tells us that it is in the process of entering information on the estimated 450,000 alien absconders into NCIC. As of October 31, only information on 15,200 alien absconders had been entered into NCIC. That number is totally unacceptable and is shocking to me.

This should only be the beginning. At the least, the NCIC should contain information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of departure and all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure agreements. In truth, the NCIC should contain information on all violations of law.

Our bill will ensure that when a NCIC roadside check is done on an individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has signed a legal document promising to leave, or has overstayed their visa.

Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to- day basis.

Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower, was stopped twice by police in Florida, Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11. And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, VA. Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against terrorism.

The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer.

In February, a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench in New York with her boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2 had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them--thus, they were not deported as the law requires.

Fifty-six illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation Predator'' found them a few weeks ago living in New York and Northern New Jersey after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped his 10-year-old niece; another has sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy; one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another has sexually assaulted a 2-year-old.

The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police are on the front lines in combating alien crime. To cut them out of the system, as we do now, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is to eliminate our most effective weapon against criminal and terrorist aliens.

The opponents of this bill will say that we don't want immigrants to succeed and that we don't want people to

come here. That is absolutely not true. We believe in the rule of law. We believe that people should come here to be citizens of this country under the color of law. We want people to come here and reach their fullest potential. But, we believe that a Nation has the right to set the standards by which it accepts people, and if it sets those standards it ought to create a legal system to enforce those standards. This bill will work to enforce the immigration standards our Nation has created.

The opposition will say that State and local police can not adequately respect the civil rights of illegal aliens, and that enforcement will cost too much and will discourage the reporting of crimes. It is curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally.

I know that State and local police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects and defendants and that they do so every day in this country. In Alabama, State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New York, the NYC Police Department operations order #11 strictly prohibits racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the rest of the Nation does as well.

Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil rights; this bill does not change that fact.

The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we can by electing to efficiently use resources already available to us. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch pennies. In immigration enforcement, I believe that it costs us too much not to enforce the law. I believe it is time that Congress take responsibility for providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given them.

When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we simply must get serious about immigration enforcement.

It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws we already have.

If State and local police are confused about their authority to enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This bill will do that. If State and local police can not access immigration background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change that. This bill makes that information more accessible. If DHS is not taking custody of the illegal aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of ``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough detection space to hold people that break the law, then we need more detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace to use in immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported, we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred from the state prison to federal officials at the end of the alien's prison sentence.

Once again I would like to thank Senator Miller for joining with me to introduce this legislation. It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control of our out-of-control immigration system. This bill is a critical step in the right direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and to join Senator Miller and I as we work to pass the Homeland Security Act of 2003.

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

Mr. President, two weeks ago, the company Hydroform USA, its subsidiary Temperform, and three company managers were indicted for conspiracy and making false statements. This is just the latest event in

a long horror story that may still threaten the safety of both military and civilian aviation. And it raises serious questions, yet again, about our ability and commitment to root out defense fraud that attacks our taxpayers and our troops.

The story is told at length in a special issue of Defense Week dated July 3 and written by John Donnelly. It starts with a company called West Coast Aluminum Heat-Treating Company, which had a plant in La Mirada, CA. Many aluminum parts on airplanes and rockets are heat- threaten to stengthen the parts, reduce corrosion, and prevent cracking and fatigue. West Coast was paid to do this by a large number of airplane manufacturers and suppliers. But beginning in 1981, they did the heat treatment for far less time and at lower temperatures than required. They didn't falsified testing of the parts. This fraud went on undetected, on hundreds of thousands of parts, for fifteen years. The parts ended up on a long list of military airplanes, helicopters, and rockets from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other contractors, as well as on many commercial planes and helicopters from Boeing, Airbus, and other manufacturers. In 1996, a West Coast foreman finally blew the whistle to Boeing.

Boeing, observed by the Federal Aviation Administration, eventually tested 1,634 parts for hardness and electrical conductivity. They found that 18 percent of the parts were critical, and that 11 percent of the parts did not meet specifications because of the fraudulent heat treatment. Tests on hundreds of other parts had similar results. But these tests may not reveal the full extent of the problems. Other, more informative tests that destroy the parts are needed to assess heat treatment well. And even parts supposedly tested may not be good, although Boeing claimed that subcontractors had tested many parts, the FAA found that six of the subcontractors could not document such testing; the other three subcontractors they contacted did have test records showing the parts were good, but when the FAA tested the parts, they found the parts did not in fact meet specifications.

Even though the fraud was revealed in 1996 and Boeing disqualified West Coast as a vendor in 1997, it took another year before Boeing and the Government bothered to let other customers know that the parts could be defective. They finally issued alerts on the Government- Industry Data Exchange Program called GIDEP, in 1998. For those two years other defense contractors continued to use West Coast. In addition, the alert that Boeing finally issued focused on ``discrepancies'' in paperwork, and claimed that the parts were fine.

Government oversight was equally weak. Although the FAA concluded that Boeing had violated federal regulations because it did not adequately supervise its subcontractors, it said the statute of limitations had expired and hence it could not pursue enforcement action. Worse, the Defense Logistics Agency wrote reports suggesting that West Coast-treated parts were fine, based on a database of 253,736 parts. But they did not actually know which parts were from West Coast, and they knew that many of the parts in the database were not even made of aluminum.

In 1998, West Coast was sold, and in 2000 its two executives were convicted, sentenced, and fined. The plant was bought by Temperform, which proceeded to commit the same fraud on tens of thousands of additional parts. It has been said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. The Temperform replay of West Coast would be amusing if it weren't still tragic. Temperform fired the West Coast employees so that Boeing would approve the company as a vendor, then promptly rehired them. The same heat-treating fraud continued undetected, and another employee finally blew the whistle again in 2000. Despite the plant's history, Boeing did not audit Temperform until this time, and then allegedly found 37 deficiencies in their quality assurance processes.

To this date, neither Boeing nor anyone else has ever issued a GIDEP alert to let other companies know of the Temperform fraud. A Government safety alert, issued only in 2002, went only to Government agencies. Thus, Lockheed Martin continued to buy parts from Temperform for more than two years. Again, the Government accused Boeing of mismanagement but declined to do anything about it. The plant again was sold in 2002, and, as I mentioned, three company executives were recently indicted. One of those three, the manager in charge of heat-treating procedures, was one of the West Coast employees who were rehired.

That is all history. But I have not yet explained a key reason why this remains a continuing threat. Almost all of the testing of parts I mentioned was of commercial parts. The military services claim that they cannot identify which parts were treated by a particular company, even for safety critical parts. Typically major weapon system programs are now managed by private contractors, which then have a large number of subcontractors supplying parts. West Coast and Temperform contracted with many of those subcontractors. Apparently we cannot negotiate this maze to find which parts, even safety critical parts, were fraudulently treated. Thus, few military parts have been tested, and if they were found unsatisfactory, it is not clear how they would be replaced.

This is not the first time this problem has come up. Not long ago the Pentagon bought 780,000 chemical protective suits from a company called Isratex. We cannot find 250,000 of those suits either. And last year the Navy could not find 42,000 defective oxygen masks.

My amendment attempts at least to examine several of these systemic issues. It requests that the Secretary of Defense report back to Congress by March 31, 2004, on efforts to find and test the parts that have been improperly heat-treated, and on notification of other customers that their parts may be defective. The report also is to look at how to implement a system for tracking safety-critical parts, and at standards and procedures for notification on future safety issues.

The amendment also asks the General Accounting Office to submit a report on issues regarding the prime contractor system that may be partly at fault here. The GAO is to look at both the oversight of subcontractors by the prime contractor--which is what they are paid to do--and the oversight and enforcement of prime contractors by the Department of Defense.

Hunderds of thousands of aluminum parts that are in our airplanes and helicopters today have not been properly strengthened. Many of these parts are safety-critical. Millions of people, civilian and military, may be at risk if a plane crashes due to a failure of one of these parts. We are at risk not only because of the fraud, but also because of the failure all the way down the line--by small subcontractors, huge plane manufacturers, and the Government--to catch the fraud, stop it in a timely manner, notify others at risk, track or test the parts, or hold anyone accountable for the oversight failures.

We must do better. This amendment is a small step toward fixing the problems, and I intend to pursue this until I am confident such abuse cannot happen again.

amendment no. 1316

Mr. President, I was inadvertently off the floor when the manager of the bill offered a managers' amendment that dealt with providing certain reparations to former U.S. servicemen who were held captive in Japan during World War II and were used as slave laborers in Japanese companies during the duration of the war.

Had I been on the floor at the time that amendment came up, I would have spoken about it and might have taken exception to its inclusion. I would have done so not because I do not think the former slave laborers of Japan deserve compensation, but it is coming from the wrong source.

Two years ago, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire and I offered an amendment that basically would have stopped the State Department and the Department of Justice from using taxpayer dollars to defend the interests of Japanese companies. That passed 58 to 34 in the Senate. The House passed the identical amendment in July in an overwhelming 393 to 33 vote, same provision, both Chambers. Incredibly, it was stripped out of conference.

Since then, the State Department has been wielding its influence on behalf of these Japanese companies, not the World War II POWs. I think this is unconscionable. The provision added tonight, basically, as I understand it, would give up to $10,000 to each former POW slave laborer, but that money comes from the taxpayers of America. Senator Smith and I said that money ought to come from the Japanese companies that are still in existence. Some of them are multinational, some of them huge, such as Mitsubishi, that actually used American slave laborers during World War II. Many of these

POWs were packed into cargo holds from the Philippines.

Four thousand American servicemen lost their lives during the Bataan death march. Those who survived were shipped off to Japan for more than 3 years to serve as slave labor for private Japanese companies. Throughout the war, Americans worked in mines, factories, shipyards, and steel mills, labored each day for as long as 10 hours a day in dangerous working conditions. They were beaten on a regular basis.

Frank Exline of Pleasant Hill, IA, was one of those POWs, a Navy seaman, who was captured April 9, 1942.

Frank Smith worked 39 months for Japanese companies in Osaka, Japan. He began on the docks unloading rock salt and keg iron and later found himself toiling in the rice fields. He was fed two rice balls a day and given very little water. During his time with the Japanese companies, he was tortured and beaten once for taking a potato. Upon being caught, the potato was shoved in his mouth and he stood at rigid attention, in the Sun, for 45 minutes. If he moved or blinked, he was beaten.

There was Frank Cardamon, of Des Moines, a marine stationed in China. His ship was attacked, and he was captured at Corregidor and sent to Japan to work in an auto parts factory and in the mines and was never paid for his work. He was fed two cups of rice a day. He went from 160 pounds to 68 pounds in 3 years of capture.

Margaret Baker, of Oelwein, IA, wrote a letter about her late husband, Charles Baker. Charles Baker, an Army private, survived the Bataan death march. He was sent to work in the mines for 3 years in Japan. He died at age 54 in 1973.

In her letter she wrote: He suffered many injuries and hunger on the death march and during his imprisonment. We feel his early death was caused by the suffering he endured while working long hours in the mines without food, rest, and clothing.

These men and 700 of their fellow prisoners of war and their families have been trying to seek long-delayed justice over the past several years. They have been to court to demand compensation from the Japanese companies that used POW slave labor. Yet our own State Department has come down on the side of the Japanese companies, not our POWs. The State Department took the view that a peace treaty signed in 1951 prohibits reparations from private Japanese companies for survivors such as Frank. In fact, State Department officials have submitted statements to the court in support of the view of these Japanese companies.

Imagine our own State Department coming down on the side of the Japanese companies, not the side of our POWs. I don't think that is right and I don't think it is fair, especially when the State Department's assertion about the treaty is inaccurate.

The State Department says the treaty signed in 1951 in San Francisco, article 14(b), exempts Japanese companies from these kinds of lawsuits. I will read the entire article 14(b):

Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the

Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied

Power, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals

arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals in

the course of the prosecution of the War. . . .

It says ``except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty.'' Well, the present treaty provides in article 26:

Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims

settlement with any State granting that State greater

advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those

same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the

present Treaty.

What does that mean? It means article 14 says that U.S. citizens, such as Frank Exline, could not sue Mitsubishi for reparations. But article 26 says if Japan were to conclude a different agreement or arrangement with another country that is more advantageous to the nationals of that country, those same advantages apply to all the signatories of the treaty.

Guess what. We didn't know this until the year 2000 when certain documents were declassified; we did not find out that Japan had concluded a separate treaty with the Netherlands, giving the Netherlands' national citizens the right to go to court to seek reparations. Under article 26, since the Netherlands got greater advantages than those under article 14, article 26 should be extended to those in the present treaty, including the United States.

The State Department ignores this. I guess they do not want to upset Mitsubishi or some of the other large corporations in Japan. They have continued to intervene in court. The courts have come down on the side of the Japanese companies.

The amendment Senator Smith and I offered 2 years ago and adopted by the Senate and the House basically said the State Department and the Department of Justice cannot intervene in these cases anymore. They cannot use the taxpayers' money to intervene in these cases. That amendment was stripped from the conference report, I guess by the urging of the State Department.

This is why I am upset and stayed at this late hour to talk and why I will talk about it more. I did not know until yesterday that this provision was going to be slipped into the Defense appropriations bill. Otherwise, I would have been prepared with amendments of my own, amendments that this Senate adopted 2 years ago.

It is not right. First, it was not right for Japan and these private companies to use United States POWs as slave laborers. There is a book that describes the torture and what they went through working for private companies as slave laborers. It is not right they were treated that way.

Second, it was not right that the United States concluded a treaty that said you can never seek compensation from these companies. That is the treaty we concluded in 1951. But there was an escape clause that said if Japan concluded a treaty with another country more advantageous to that country, then those same rights would accrue to our citizens. But that was kept under seal from 1951 until the year 2000. Then we found out that article 26 applied and that our former POWs, used as slave laborers, should have the right to go to court to seek compensation.

I am not saying they would have gotten it. At least they could have gone to court to press their rights, to exercise their rights to seek compensation.

What the amendment tonight did is it said now American taxpayers are going to pay them, American tax payers are now going to pay $10,000 to each of these former POWs who are dying every day because of old age and infirmities. Why should the American taxpayer pay them?

These Japanese companies have a lot of money. A lot of the money they have was made on the backs of slave laborers during World War II, and these companies still exist today. That is why I found the inclusion of this amendment so offensive. It is a slap in the face to these former POWs, these slave laborers, saying: We are going to give you $10,000; now shut up.

I understand there was a previous amendment that would have given $30,000 or $20,000 to the widows. That was taken away. I understand it is only $10,000 now. Not only is that a slap in the face, but it is a slap in the face to the U.S. taxpayer, that somehow our taxpayers have to pay for what these Japanese companies did during World War II.

So this is not the last I will have to say about this. I will seek other avenues and other venues, bills coming across the floor of the Senate, to make sure our POWs have the right to seek compensation from these private companies. If the Dutch could get it done, if they had the right to do it, then our American citizens ought to have that same right under article 26 of the treaty of 1951. So while this amendment may have been adopted, I will seek other avenues, as I said, later on. And I will ask for record votes on it because Senators voted on it 2 years ago and House Members voted on it 2 years ago overwhelmingly. Maybe it is time to express, again, our displeasure at the State Department for what they have been doing, for interfering with the rights of our citizens to seek redress in our courts.

With that, again, I put the Senate on notice that this amendment will be coming down the pike whenever I find the first opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the Schumer amendment to the Defense bill regarding the development of an Iraqi police force. This is an urgent amendment--one of the most important Iraq-related amendments we have considered on the defense bill.

The Schumer amendment will focus the administration's attention on the domestic security issue in Iraq that threatens American servicemen and women, other Americans and foreigners now in Iraq, and the Iraqi people.

One of the reasons we went to war in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people. The military campaign was named, ``Operation Iraqi Freedom.'' Again and again, from the President on down, we have been told that we acted on behalf of the Iraqi people.

We all witnessed the scenes of jubilation at the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Time and again, the administration has told us that we have restored freedom to the Iraqi people.

We all hope this is ultimately true. But the truth today is very different for women in Iraq and particularly in Baghdad.

Yeserday, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing reports of rape, assault, and kidnapping of women and girls in Baghdad. The report cites 25 credible allegations of rape and abduction since the fall of Saddam Hussein. It is believed that the number of rapes and sexual assaults in Baghdad is far higher. Women are discouraged from reporting the crime and face social isolation and even ``honor killings'' by other family members for being violently victimized.

Yesterday's New York Times contains a disturbing article about the dangers confronting women in Baghdad. I ask unanimous consent to have the article, ``Rape (And the Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad,'' printed in the Record.

[From the New York Times, July 16, 2003]

Rape (and Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad

(By Neela Banerjee)

Baghdad, Iraq, July 15.--In her loose black dress, gold

hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to

seat in her living

room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants

to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her

white teddy bear, will be her assistant.

But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven

weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and

has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She

cries, ``Let me go!'' ``I am afraid of the gangsters,''

Sanariya whispered in the twilight of her hallway. ``I feel

like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have

these nightmares.''

Since the end of the war and outbreak of anarchy on the

capital's streets, women here have grown increasingly afraid

of being abducted and raped. Rumors swirl, especially in a

country where rape is so rarely reported.

The breakdown of the Iraqi government after the war makes

any crime hard to quantify. But the incidence of rape and

abduction in particular seems to have increased, according to

discussions with physicians, law-enforcement officials and

families involved. A new report by Human Rights Watch based

on more than 70 interviews with law-enforcement officials,

victims and their families, medical personnel and members of

the coalition authority found 25 credible reports of

abduction and sexual violence since the war. Baghdadis

believe there are far more, and fear is limiting women's role

in the capital's economic, social and political life just as

Iraq tires to rise from the ashes, the report notes.

For most Iraqi victims of abduction and rape, getting

medical and police assistance is a humiliating process.

Deeply traditional notions of honor foster a sense of shame

so strong that many families offer no consolation or support

for victims, only blame. Sanariya's four brothers and parents

beat her daily, Fatin said, picking up a bamboo slat her

father uses. The city morgue gets corpses of women who were

murdered by their relatives in so-called honor killings after

they returned from an abduction--even, in some cases, when

they had not been raped, said Nidal Hussein, a morgue nurse.

``For a woman's family, all this is worse than death,''

said Dr. Khulud Younis, a gynecologist at the Alwiyah Women's

Hospital. ``They will face shame. If a woman has a sister,

her future will be gone. These women don't deserve to be

treated like this.''

It is not uncommon in Baghdad to see lines of cars outside

girls' schools. So fearful are parents that their daughters

will be taken away that they refuse to simply drop them off;

they or a relative will stay outside all day to make sure

nothing happens.

``Women and girls today in Baghdad are scared, and many are

not going to schools or jobs or looking for work,'' said

Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle east and

North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. ``If Iraqi women

are to participate in postwar society, their physical

security needs to be an urgent priority.''

Beyda Jafar Sadiq, 17, made the simple decision to go to

school on the morning of May 22 and never returned. Her

family has been looking for her ever since. They have

appealed to every international nongovernmental organization,

the Iraqi police and the American authorities. Her eldest

brother, Feras, 29, has crisscrossed the country, visiting

the morgue in Basra in the south, traveling to Amara and

Nasiriya on reports from acquaintances that they saw a girl

who looked like Beyda. ``I just want to find her,'' said

Beyda's mother, Zakiya Abd, her eyes swollen with grief.

``Whether she's alive or dead, I jut want to find her.

Some police in Baghdad concede that at this point, there is

little they can do to help. Their precinct houses were

thoroughly looted after the war. Despite promises from the

American authorities, Baghdad police still lack uniforms

weapons, communications and computer equipment and patrol

cars. ``We used to patrol all the time before the war,'' said

a senior officer at the Aadimiya precinct house. ``Now,

nothing, and the criminals realize their is no security on

the streets.''

The Human Rights Watch report alleges that sometimes when

women try to report a rape or families ask for help in

finding abducted women, they are turned away by Iraqi police

officers indifferent to the crimes. Some law-enforcement

officials insist abduction and rape have not increased, while

other officials and many medical personnel disagree. Bernard

R. Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner and now

an adviser to the Interior Ministry, told of recently firing

a precinct chief when he learned that the official had failed

to pursue a family's report of their missing 16-year-old

daughter. ``The biggest part of the issue is a culture that

precludes people from reporting,'' Mr. Kerik said. ``It

encourages people not to report.''

If an Iraqi woman wants to report a rape, she has to travel

a bureaucratic odyssey. She first has to go to the police for

documents that permit her to get a forensic test. That test

is performed only at he city morgue. The police take a

picture of the victim and stamp it and then stamp her arm.

That is so no one else goes in her place and says that she

was raped, that she lost her virginity,'' said Ms. Hussein,

the nurse. At the morgue, a committee of three male doctors

performs a gynecological examination on the victim to

determine if there was sexual abuse. The doctors are

available only from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. If a victim

arrives at any other time, she has to return the next day,

without washing away any physical evidence. Hospitals can

check victims only for broader trauma, like contusions and

broken bones.

Dr. Younis said she had seen more rape cases in the months

after the war than before. Yet even when women come to the

hospital with injuries that are consistent with rape, they

often insist something else happened. A 60-year-old woman

asserted that she had been hit by a car. The mother of a 6-

year-old girl begged the doctor to write a report saying that

her daughter's hymen had been ruptured because she fell on a

sharp object, a common lie families tell in the case of rape,

Dr. Younis said. Shame and fear compel the lies, Dr. Younis

said. ``A woman's father or brother, they feel it is their

duty to kill her'' if she has been raped, Dr. Younis said.

``It is the tribal law. They will get only six months

in prison and then they are out.''

Sanariya's family took her to a doctor three days after her

attack only because the bleeding had not stopped. She had

been sitting on the stairs at about 4 p.m. on May 22 when an

armed man dragged her into an abandoned building next door.

He shot at neighbors who tried to help the girl. He fled when

she began screaming during the assault.

Her mother refuses to let her outside now to play. Fatin

lied to her family and said an operation had been done to

restore Sanariya's hymen. But when her eldest brother, Ahmed,

found out otherwise, he wanted to kill Sanariya, Fatin said.

Out of earshot of her family, Sanariya said she feels no

better now, two months after the attack. ``I don't sleep at

night,'' she said in the hallway. ``I don't sleep.''

The article describes a 9-year-old girl who wakes up screaming, ``Let me go!'' This is a 9-year old girl whose life has been forever changed by unimaginable violence. She says in the article, ``I am afraid of the gangsters. I feel like they are killing me in my nightmares. Every day, I have these nightmares.''

The story of this young girl--one of too many stories--ought to be enough to focus the Congress and the administration on the urgency of the domestic security situation in Iraq.

Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when women and girls live in fear of abduction, rape, and murder?

Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when women are denied participation in a new Iraqi government and economy because their physical security is threatened every time they go out alone? Have we restored freedom to the Iraqi people when 9-year-old girls are victimized in the most horrifying way?

I want to share with the Senate a passage from the summary of the Human Rights Watch report titled, ``Climate of Fear: Sexual Violence and Abduction of Women and Girls in Baghdad.''

The summary reads:

Many of the problems in addressing sexual violence and

abduction against women and girls derive from the U.S.-led

coalition forces and civilian administration's failure to

provide public security in Baghdad. The public security

vacuum in Baghdad has heightened the vulnerability of women

and girls to sexual violence and abduction. The police force

is considerably smaller and more poorly managed when compared

to prior to the war. There is limited police street presence;

fewer resources available to police to investigate; little if

any record keeping; and many complaints are lost. Many

hospitals and the forensic institute are unable to operate

twenty-four hours a day as they did before the war, thus

preventing women from obtaining medical treatment and the

forensic examinations necessary to document sexual violence

in a timely manner.

The summary concludes with the following,

At the time of writing, plans for Iraq's reconstruction are

taking shape and rights of women and girls are at stake. It

is essential that all parties involved in these plans address

the state's inadequate protection of the rights of women and

girls. Those involved in the reconstruction process should

ensure that any existing and new trends toward treating women

and girls unequally before the law and discouraging women and

girls from reporting sexual violence, or punishing women and

girls for being the victims of sexual violence are countered.

We all know that our troops are faced with dangerous resistance throughout Iraq. Just yesterday, our military leaders acknowledged that we were facing a guerrilla warfare campaign of resistance. We know that our troops are serving honorably in a tremendously difficult environment. All of America is proud of our all volunteer force now serving in Iraq and the region.

Despite the efforts of U.S. personnel, we have not adequately addressed the domestic security crisis in Iraq. We cannot ignore that women and young girls are being victimized with terrible consequences. These crimes do not just affect individual women but the way women are viewed and the role they will play in a new Iraq.

We cannot be silent about the abuse and violence that has come to women

and girls in liberated Iraq. The Schumer amendment is our opportunity today to tell the administration that we will not tolerate silence on the treatment of women and girls in Iraq.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for bringing this issue to the Senate for the reasons he stated in order to allow us to know when our troops are going to be home. But, as I mentioned, I add another dimension to why it is so important to put a police force and have a trained police force in Iraq and on the ground there.

I would recommend to all of my colleagues that they take the time to pick up the New York Times from yesterday and read the article I referred to, which is a front page article: ``Rape (And Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad.'' I will read from the beginning of that article:

In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-

flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room

like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to

be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her

white teddy bear, will be her assistant.

But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven

weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and

has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She

cries, ``Let me go!''

``I am afraid of the gangsters,'' [she says].

Every one of our colleagues should read the Human Rights Watch report that has just been released titled ``Climate of Fear, Sexual Violence and Abduction of Women and Girls in Baghdad.'' That report says that many of the problems in addressing sexual violence and abduction that are increasing in Iraq against women and girls derived from the United States-led coalition force's and civilian administration's failure to provide public security in Baghdad.

We went to war in Iraq. We have heard everyone say it was to restore freedom. Let's make sure the young girls in Iraq have that security and that freedom as well. They do not have it today. The amendment by the Senator from New York puts us on track. We need to follow this in Iraq. I commend the Senator for the amendment and I thank the manager of the bill for accepting it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``United States-Africa Partnership Act.'' This bill builds on the important trade and investment initiatives that were contained in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed in 2000.

The original African Growth and Opportunity Act and the expansion of AGOA that I am introducing today emphasize the need to elevate the African private sector. The AGOA legislation offers enhanced trade benefits, more U.S. private sector investment, and a higher level dialogue with African governments. It envisions a new economic partnership between the United States and African nations.

To gain these benefits, African countries are expected to undertake sustained economic reform, abide by international human rights practices, and strengthen good goverance. These standards have been used by the U.S. to stimulate reforms in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to expect that they will not be successful in Africa as well.

Private investment tends to follow good governance and economic reform, but the private sector takes cues from government policies and involvement. It is very much in our interest to play a constructive role in the evolving political and economic transition in Africa. A stable and prosperous Africa will be better equipped to cooperate on a range of shared global problems such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, narcotics, the environment and contagious diseases. African economic success also can create new markets for American exports. If jobs are created and foreign exchange is earned through enhanced exports, Africa will have greater capacity to buy goods and services from abroad. They will likely purchase machinery, electronics, financial services, agricultural products, and many other goods and services from U.S. suppliers.

If we had ignored Taiwan and Korea in the 1960s when they were at stages of economic development comparable to many African societies today, we would have missed out on enormous opportunities in East Asia. Years from now, I hope we can look back and say that we were present at a crucial juncture in Africa's growth and development and that we played a constructive role in that change.

In an effort to reverse the persistent under-performance by African economies and to stimulate American involvement in Africa, I introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States Senate in 1999. Since its enactment in 2000, AGOA has been a positive economic force in Africa. In 2002, 94 percent of U.S. imports from AGOA-eligible countries entered duty-free. The United States imported $9 billion in merchandise duty-free under AGOA in 2002, a 10 percent increase from 2001.

Imports from African countries, not counting oil, jumped 50 percent last year. In South Africa, sub-Sahara's most important economy, exports of automobiles have increased sixteen-fold in the past two years. The tiny country of Lesotho, population 2.2 million, generated $318 million in AGOA exports in 2002. New export-oriented garment factories have created 25,000 jobs. For the first time in its history, private sector manufacturing employment--thanks to trade--exceeds government employment.

Performances like this, which occurred despite the recent slowdown in world trade, are the direct result of AGOA. The legislation lets African countries export some 1,800 products duty-free, without quotas, to the United States. It is a direct response to developing countries' long-time plea; trade, not aid, is the real key to ending poverty and bringing about sustainable, long term economic growth.

Despite these signs of progress, many Africa economies remain in bad shape. Of the 64 least developed countries in the world, 38 are in Africa. Per capita output of goods and services actually dropped during the 1990s, according to the World Bank, and with only 1.4 percent of world trade in 2001, sub-Saharan Africa has been falling behind the rest of the world. During the 1990s,

global gross domestic product grew a robust 44 percent; the figure for Africa was only 8.5 percent. From 1990 to 2001, gross national income per capita in sub-Saharan Africa actually declined by .2 percent.

Africa is in need of help, and expanding AGOA should be a part of the development strategy for the continent. The experience of AGOA has taught us valuable lessons about the path to enhanced investment and economic development and has confirmed some of the key principles that proponents of market-based development have used to guide policy. First, AGOA has demonstrated that a commitment to good governance and a positive investment climate is important to economic growth. Countries such as Lesotho, which has made significant efforts in recent years to promote economic reform and stable democracy, have derived the most benefit from the AGOA provisions. Second, the experience of AGOA has demonstrated that regional integration is as essential to development as access to the U.S. and other foreign markets. Using the infrastructure and economic stability of South Africa as a base, neighboring southern African countries have worked together to take advantage of the benefits under AGOA.

AGOA should not be seen as an end in itself. Rather, it is an initial step designed to expand development and decrease poverty by promoting greater integration of Africa into the global trading community. Achieving these goals will require both enhancements to the AGOA framework and additional steps to address the compelling problems facing Africa. Our trade efforts must be part of a broader American partnership with the often-neglected countries of Africa.

This partnership starts with three issues. First, we must help address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. In addition to the human tragedy that HIV/AIDS has created in Africa, the epidemic severely limits the economic growth that would reduce Africa's poverty. When workers are forced to call in sick more days than they are able to work, when government positions are experiencing regular turnover, and when scarce capital must be diverted from investment to dealing with the AIDS crisis, it is nearly impossible to build a stable economy.

Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation establishing a program under which the United States will contribute $15 billion over the next 5 years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. The President signed this bill into law and has placed his prestige behind its effective implementation. It is my hope that this leadership and much needed funding will start to turn the tide in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Second, we have begun an effort to rethink the way that aid is delivered to the world's poorest countries, most of which are in Africa. Earlier this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took action on the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation initiative. This initiative would deliver up to $8 billion over the next three years to the world's poorest countries, and it would condition that aid on the development of policies by the recipient countries that will make that aid more effective. These policies include a commitment to just and democratic governance and economic freedom. The Millennium Challenge Corporation would build on the lessons of AGOA, which has demonstrated that private investment will flow to countries that build a stable, predictable investment climate. The incentives provided by Millennium Challenge Corporation dollars would help to establish conditions that will cause private investment dollars to flow to the poorest countries.

Third, we need to move forward with enhancements to AGOA itself. That is my purpose in introducing the United States Africa Partnership Act (USAPA)--also known as ``AGAO III.''' The current AGOA expires in 2008. My bill would extend AGOA benefits until 2015. This coincides with the goal of the World Trade Organizations to have a ``tariff free world'' by 2015. We should take action on this extension soon so that investors will have the certainty they need when making investment decisions involving Africa.

AGOA contains a provision that allows least developed countries (LDCs) to export capped quantities of apparel made from third country fabric to the U.S. duty free. All other countries must use U.S. or African fabric inputs in order to receive duty-free treatment. This ``special rule'' for LDCs expires on September 30, 2004. USAPA would extend this provision for four additional years until September 30, 2008.

It also would eliminate the import sensitivity test with respect to African products and nuisance provisions in the rule of origin for apparel. The AGOA rule of origin is modified so that it applies only to the essential components of apparel. USAPA also clarifies the definitions of certain fabrics for customs purposes, including hand- loomed folklore articles.

USAPA would develop initiatives to provide technical and capacity building experience. In the area of agriculture, it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive plan to increase import and export abilities in agricultural trade. It also provides that 20 full-time personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service be stationed in at least 10 AGOA eligible countries to provide technical assistance in meeting U.S. import requirements and trade capacity building.

In an effort to stimulate business partnerships, the bill I introduce today also addresses investment incentives and encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Foreign Agricultural Service to facilitate investment in AGOA eligible countries. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to seek negotiations regarding tax treaties with eligible countries.

In addition, it encourages U.S. private investment in African transportation, energy and telecommunications and increases coordination between U.S. and African transportation entities to reduce transit times and costs between the United States and Africa.

Finally, the bill grants funding for the continuation of the AGOA forums and establishes an AGOA task force to facilitate the goals of the Act.

The original African Growth and Opportunity Act launched an effort to formulate a new American strategy towards Africa. It sought to establish the foundation for a more mature economic relationship with those countries in Africa that undertake serious economic and political reforms. That effort was supported by virtually all sub-Saharan African nations, and it had wide support among American businesses and non- governmental organizations. We should now seize the opportunity to further integrate African countries into the world economy.

The United States-Africa Partnership Act that I introduce today recognizes the enormous potential for economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa. It embraces the vast diversity of people, cultures, economies, and potential among forty-eight countries and nearly 700 million people. A stable and economically prosperous Africa can provide new partnerships that will contribute greatly to our commercial and security interests. I urge all members to support the United States-Africa Partnership Act so that we can achieve the mutual long-term benefits that it would bring to Africa and to our country.

Mr. President, tonight the United States Senate accepted an amendment that I wrote with the distinguished senior Senator from West

Virginia, Mr. Byrd, to require accountability and independent oversight on the ``contracts for reconstruction and other services in Iraq that are funded in whole or in part with funds that are made available by the Department of Defense.''

This requirement is long overdue.

Too much money is moving right now out of public coffers into private hands without adequate assurance that those hands have won the contracts fairly. Suffice it to say, the sums of money involved are staggering. The latest issue of Newsweek magazine says:

$1 billion a week, and that's the lowside. So much for

``self-sustaining'' reconstruction.

The head of Iraq's State oil marketing organization thinks ``the United States is dreaming if it believes it will be able to finance the reconstruction with oil money alone.''

I was particularly troubled several weeks ago because, in the New York Times magazine, there was a feature length article describing the letting of a multibillion-dollar oil field contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root. That contract was sole source, meaning that Kellogg, Brown won it without having to compete at all. But now it appears that Kellogg, Brown and Root actually developed the Army's plan for the oil field restoration effort, and then was awarded the contract to carry out the plan, almost automatically.

I think it is important to be clear. This process essentially allowed an incumbent contractor to identify the criteria for a multibillion- dollar contract and virtually ensured that it would be awarded the contract without competition. The inside track doesn't peter out there. Under the auspices of an even larger, incredibly lucrative contract with the Army, Kellogg, Brown seems to have written the Army's so- called contingency plan for rebuilding Iraq. If the news reports are correct, then the potential for sole-source custom-crafted contracts is practically guaranteed by Kellogg, Brown's agreement.

The Department of Defense recently announced that it is going to go back and solicit bidding for the oil field contracts. So, in a sense, that ends the original controversy, the original contract that I was so concerned about with Kellogg, Brown and Root. But the American people deserve to know whether, in reletting this contract, the Department of Defense has finally acknowledged a problem with the original agreement and the contract processes that are being used today. The American people deserve to know whether the Department of Defense, on a regular basis, is letting other contracts to other companies in this fashion. The American people deserve to know whether the Department of Defense intends to continue this practice where it has not yet been discovered.

If individual contractors are customarily setting the criteria for the work they plan to pursue, it seems to me there are serious conflict-of-interest issues that the Department of Defense should be working immediately to root out.

When you consider the Kellogg, Brown and Root contracts are so-called cost-plus contracts, this arrangement becomes even more unacceptable. Cost-plus lets companies spend what they think is necessary, and after that they get to tack on a percentage fee to make a profit. The more taxpayer dollars the company spends, the more profit they bring home. In effect, these contracts send out a message that the Treasury is open. If you are wasteful and inefficient, don't sweat it because the taxpayer is just going to pick up the bills.

A number of Iraqi reconstruction contracts, not just the Kellogg, Brown contract, have been designed in this way. If the Defense Department is going to spend my constituents' money in this manner without asking for a competitive bid, my constituents deserve to know why.

I have just been having community, townhall meetings in a number of our small, rural communities. I was recently in Gold Beach, OR, at a townhall meeting. Folks there were talking about the difficulty they face getting money for dredging, which is critically important. It is the lifeblood of these small, rural communities on the Oregon coast. They have to battle for every dime in order to get the funds for dredging. I can tell you my constituents in Gold Beach, Coos Bay, Pendleton, and Portland--across the State of Oregon--are saying there is no place for waste. With respect to these Iraqi reconstruction contracts and various other contracts with Iraq, they want to make sure that not only is there no waste, but there should not be any possibility for impropriety.

I understand that in some cases, there may be valid reasons for the awarding of contracts that seem suspect to the untrained eye. One explanation I have heard repeatedly is the need to award some contracts quickly. Another is the need for security clearances. But I cannot imagine that the need to move quickly is a valid justification for ignoring experience as a criterion, nor does a security clearance seem necessary for rebuilding a sewer system.

As a Member of the Intelligence Committee, I had thought these arguments were pretty shaky before. I said then, and I will repeat it tonight. I believe the Department of Defense and other agencies involved in reconstruction would have a more open process and greater credibility if they knew they had to face the public on these important issues.

The fact is: The Pentagon has kept the American taxpayer in the dark. The American people at present do not know how the select group of contractors was chosen, how much the reconstruction of Iraq will cost or how long it will take.

Tonight, with the adoption of the legislation authored with Senator Byrd, we are going to be in a position to finally get on top of those issues.

I want to express my appreciation to a number of the Senators on the Appropriations Committee, particularly Senator Stevens, the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, and the distinguished subcommittee chair of that committee, for working closely with me and my colleagues on this legislation.

Recently, the New York Times reported the current supply of about $7 billion for rebuilding Iraq includes $1.7 billion for Iraqi assets frozen in U.S. banks, $900 million found hiding in Iraq, and about $1.6 billion from Iraqi oil sold before the war. The United Nations is holding about $1 billion for development, and Congress has already appropriated $2.4 billion for reconstruction contracts. The occupation administrator is reportedly seeking about $6 billion for the remainder of this year, and ``the amount for 2004 will be considerably higher.'' Independent sources familiar with Iraq have put the price tag at upwards of $100 billion.

The Pentagon just last week informed Congress that the monthly cost of military operations is really twice what they predicted in April, or nearly $4 billion. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called this a ``burn rate'' of $1 billion a week. My question then becomes, Will the administration have to effect a similar doubling of the projected reconstruction costs? What sort of a ``burn rate'' can the American people expect on the reconstruction side of the ledger?

We have seen the costs go up and up with respect to military operations. Suffice it to say, I think there is every reason to believe that will be the case with respect to reconstruction contracts as well.

What Senator Byrd and I have said--and we are very pleased the Senate on a bipartisan basis has accepted our amendment--is it is time for some accountability, and it is time for real and independent oversight with respect to these contracts.

What is needed are clear processes and standards for designing and awarding contracts. What is needed are clear criteria for justifying sole-source contracts. What is needed are mechanisms to provide independent oversight over contractors. What is needed are policies to prevent conflicts of interest. What is needed are policies to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. What is needed are ways to assure the percentage of profits is determined for cost-fixed-fee contracts in a way that protects our taxpayers. Finally, what is needed is a list of all contracts for reconstruction and other services in Iraq and their overall expected costs and duration.

This week the civil administrator Paul Bremer said that just over the next 6 months Iraqi oil revenues will be $2 billion short of what will be needed to finance occupation and reconstruction. He admitted that reconstruction

of Iraq is ``not going to be self-financing.'' Newsweek magazine called these numbers ``misleading.''

What this means, in plain English, is that U.S. taxpayers are going to get stuck funding the difference for a number of months and for the foreseeable future.

We believe the pattern of secretive and closed bidding for these construction contracts is unacceptable. It seems to me the American people have a right to hear if there are reasons for sole-source and invitation-only contracts for these projects. If something is amiss in the Iraqi reconstruction contracting process, then the oversight and the accountability--as Senator Byrd and I have called for in the legislation accepted tonight--is going to bring that to light. It is high time Congress and the American people arrive at fair judgments about these difficult issues with respect to funding the reconstruction of Iraq. The American people deserve real accountability at a time when we need the money here at home for our schools, for our health care facilities, for our roads, and for the critical needs of strengthening our economy.

I think it is a significant step the Senate has taken. It assures this will now be an effort to establish true oversight and accountability over the billions of dollars that are being spent now and that will be spent with respect to reconstructing Iraq and other services in that country.

I thank Senator Byrd for his patience and assistance in this legislation.

Again, I express my appreciation to Chairman Stevens for helping us to draft this in a way that will win bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.