Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am limited on time, I say to my colleague. When I get through this, I will be glad to respond.

Mr. DODD. I will come back to the Senator. Even more astounding is the data reported in the January 11, 2004 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which discovered that in anticipation of Congress reforming class action procedures, the number of class actions filed in Madison County Circuit Court rose to an all-time high. Yet it is not only the sheer numbers of filings in Madison County that is so astonishing. What is so surprising is that many of these class actions have little connection to the county. In fact, sometimes only a few class members actually came from that particular jurisdiction. Even the Illinois Supreme Court has noted the congested dockets in this court and declared ``the congestion is aggravated by the presence of [nonresident] cases that have little or no connection to Madison County.'' For example, a recent case that found its way to Madison County involved a purported class action on behalf of 30 million customers who claimed to be injured by Sears in connection with an allegedly deceptive tire balancing service. Only one plaintiff, a Madison County resident, was named, and only one Sears automotive repair shop was actually located in Madison County. The class action, however, sought to certify a nationwide class, allegedly subject to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, despite the fact that the vast majority of class members and the vast majority of Sears locations have no connection to Illinois at all, much less to Madison County. Madison County has especially been a magnet for asbestos cases. In fact, Madison County led the Nation 2 years ago in the number of mesothelioma cases filed. In most of these cases, however, the plaintiffs did not live in Madison County, were not exposed to asbestos in Madison County, and were not treated for any asbestos-related illnesses in Madison County. For example, in a recently decided case, an Indiana resident claimed that he was exposed to asbestos at the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, IN. He sued U.S. Steel, which is based in Pennsylvania, in Madison County. Despite the total lack of connection to the local forum, the case proceeded to trial and a Madison County jury awarded him $50 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages. Clearly, such practices need to be curtailed in any meaningful reform of the class action system. Again, I emphasize I am a strong supporter of class action. Class action litigation is critically important, but when these things get out of control, then we have to get them back on track again. There are many more examples of national class actions implicating hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars being decided by Madison County judges because of its reputation as a magnet court. That means that the laws of Madison County, Illinois on everything from insurance policy to consumer fraud to environmental protection are being imposed on the residents of the other 49 states, despite the fact that many of those States have adopted different legal views. The compromise bill specifically addresses this serious problem. It includes language not in the earlier bill to clarify when a Federal court can exercise its jurisdiction if between one-third and two-thirds of the proposed class members and all primary defendants are citizens of the same State. Specifically, the compromise authorizes Federal courts to consider any ``distinct nexus'' or connection between the forum where the action was brought and the class members, the alleged harm, or the defendants. The purpose of this provision is to require Federal judges to consider whether the interstate class action has any relationship to the jurisdiction where it is brought. If there were no such connections, as in the case of many of the class actions filed in Madison County, the Federal judge would then have the discretion of moving the case to Federal court. Such a provision would therefore rein in the blatant forum shopping that is so prevalent in Madison County and other magnet jurisdictions today. The other improvement to the Federal diversity statute that the compromise bill makes concerns the so-called ``local class action exception.'' The purpose of this exception is to ensure that State courts can adjudicate class actions that are truly local in nature, and they should have that right. Under the original bill, Federal jurisdiction would not have been extended to those cases in which two-thirds or more of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants were citizens of the State in which the suit was filed. Such cases would have remained in State court, since virtually all of the parties in such cases would have been local, and local interests therefore presumably would have predominated. There were concerns raised in the earlier bill, however, that class actions with a truly local focus may be moved to Federal court because of the presence of an out-of-State defendant necessary to prosecuting the action. The compromise responds to these concerns by further refining the criteria as to when a class action is to remain in State court. First, under our proposal, there must be a primarily local class--that is, more than two-thirds of the class members should be citizens of the forum State. Second, there must be at least one real local defendant. Third, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of all of the defendants must have occurred in the forum State. Finally, there must be no other class actions having been filed in the previous 3 years based on the same or similar allegations against any of the defendants. Again, these provisions respect State sovereignty by ensuring that class actions of a truly local nature are kept at the State level, while complex class actions with nationwide implications are heard in Federal courts. I want to briefly respond to some of the concerns raised about the jurisdictional provisions in the bill. Critics of this legislation have claimed that the measure would sweep most if not all State class actions into Federal court, where overburdened and unsympathetic judges would let them wither and die. I believe that such concerns are largely misplaced. First, as I noted earlier, we included provisions in the compromise to ensure that State prerogatives are respected. These provisions--namely, the ``local class action exception'' and the ``distinct nexus'' language--are intended to keep truly local cases in State court. In fact, the compromise leaves in State court a wide range of class actions, such as those in which all the plaintiffs and defendants are residents of the same State; those with fewer than 100 plaintiffs; those involving less than $5 million; those in which a State government entity is the primary defendant; those brought against a company in its home State in which two-thirds or more of the class members are also residents of that State; and shareholder class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty. What the compromise does target for Federal jurisdiction, however, are those nationwide or multistate class actions that are filed in magnet courts such as Madison County, IL. While I respect the views of those who assert that State courts are appropriate forums for such cases, I must respectfully disagree. In my view, such large, multistate or nationwide class actions are precisely the kinds of cases that are most appropriately tried in Federal court. I believe that the provisions we included in the compromise are quite discriminating about which class actions will be removed to Federal court and which will remain in State court. Second, critics of the legislation have argued that Federal courts are so overburdened that they do not have the resources to handle class actions formerly assigned to State court judges. Again, these concerns are unfounded. The real workload issues are not in the Federal courts but in the State courts, where the average State court judge is assigned three times as many cases as his or her Federal counterparts. According to the Court Statistics Project, State court judges are assigned over 1,500 new cases each year. In contrast, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts finds that each Federal court judge was assigned an average of 518 new cases during the 12-month period ending September 30, 2002. Third, I also want to be perfectly clear on one further matter. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that would alter any individual's right to seek redress for his or her injury. It does not grant defendants any new defense. Consumers can bring the same exact claims as they are bringing now. Civil rights, environmental, and employment claims are in no way precluded. The only issue that this bill would address is whether it is more appropriate for a State or Federal court to adjudicate those same rights, and I believe that we have struck the appropriate balance in making this determination. I want to now return to the other provisions in the compromise that represent significant improvements over the earlier legislation. We have clarified the date when the plaintiff class could be measured. The compromise makes clear that citizenship of the proposed class members is to be determined on the date plaintiffs filed the original complaint. If there is no Federal jurisdiction over the first complaint, however, citizenship is to be determined when plaintiffs serve an amended complaint or other paper indicating the existence of Federal jurisdiction. The original bill had been silent on when class composition could be measured, which caused some concern that a court would have to constantly reconsider jurisdiction as the contours of the class changed. I believe that the compromise has adequately addressed this matter, and has provided much needed clarity to determining class composition. Another provision in the earlier bill that caused great difficulty would have required Federal courts to dismiss class actions if the court determined that the case did not meet Rule 23 requirements. The bill provided that the class action complaint may be amended and refiled in State court, but that the new complaint would be subject to removal again if it met Federal jurisdictional requirements. Thus, even if a State court subsequently certifies the class, it could be removed again and again, creating a judicial merry-go-round between Federal and State court. The compromise stops the merry-go-round altogether. It eliminates the dismissal requirement, giving Federal courts discretion to handle Rule 23-ineligible cases appropriately. Potentially meritorious suits will therefore not be automatically dismissed simply because they fail to comply with the class certification requirements of Rule 23. The original bill would have also allowed the removal of a case at any time to Federal court even if all other class members wanted the case to remain in State court. In June 2003, 106 professors of constitutional law and civil procedure wrote to Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle expressing their concerns over this provision. They argued that: [It] would give a defendant the power to yank a case away from a state-court judge who has properly issued pretrial rulings the defendant does not like, and would encourage a level of forum-shopping never before seen in this country. Moreover, this provision would allow an unscrupulous defendant, anxious to put off the day of judgment so that more assets can be hidden, to remove a case on the eve of a state-court trial, resulting in an automatic delay of months or even years before the case can be tried in Federal courts. We listened to the concerns of the law professors and deleted the provision in the original bill allowing plaintiffs to remove class actions. We also retain current law permitting individual plaintiffs from opting out of class actions. The compromise would therefore make a real difference in curbing abuse of the removal process by various counsel. Two further improvements in the compromise are also worth mentioning. First, we responded to concerns that the ``mass actions'' provisions in the original legislation were too broad. The earlier bill would have treated all mass actions involving over 100 claimants as if they were class actions. Under the compromise, only more substantial claims in a mass action-- namely, those that would meet the normal jurisdictional amount requirement of $75,000 for individual actions--will be subject to Federal jurisdiction. In addition, we change the ``single sudden accident'' exception to exclude from Federal jurisdiction mass actions in which all claims arise from an ``event or occurrence'' that happened in the State where the action was filed and that allegedly resulted in injuries in that State or in a contiguous State. The purpose of this change is to allow a much broader range of truly local cases to remain in State courts. The compromise also clarifies that there is no Federal jurisdiction under the mass action provision for claims that have been consolidated for pretrial purposes. Second, the original bill would have allowed defendants to seek unlimited appellate review of Federal court orders remanding cases to State courts. If a defendant requested an appeal, the Federal courts would have been required to hear the appeal and the appeals would have taken months or even years to complete. The compromise would obviate the potential for workload problems and long delays in two important ways. First, it would give the appellate courts the discretion to conduct reviews at their discretion. Presumably, Federal courts would refuse to hear an appeal unless it presented novel issues or where a district court has clearly abused its discretion. Second, it requires such appeals to be heard on an expedited basis by establishing tight deadlines for completion of any appeals so that no case can be delayed more than 77 days, unless all parties agree to a longer extension. Finally, the compromise is in no way retroactive--that is, it will not upset or alter in any way cases filed before enactment, should in fact the bill be signed into law. Unlike other litigation reform bills considered by this Congress on guns, medical malpractice, and MTBE, the compromise does not shut the courtroom door on anyone. Instead, it will just direct them to a Federal rather than a State courthouse. These changes I have discussed represent a fair and a balanced compromise. They constitute a significant improvement over the earlier class action reform legislation brought before the Senate last October. I want to reemphasize my long-held view that a strong class action system can ultimately serve as a force for good. It can be used to hold companies accountable for significant violations that may result in a small monetary charge for one victim. It can also be harnessed to allow large groups to seek redress for civil rights and other harms where they could not have done so individually. In short, the class action system is the great equalizer in the American judicial system. Yet nobody can deny that the class action system is being seriously abused. As The Washington Post editorialized last year: No area of the United States civil justice system cries out more urgently for reform than the high stakes extortion racket of class actions. In addition, an excellent Newsweek article published last December entitled ``Lawsuit Hell: How Fear of Litigation is Paralyzing our Professions'' noted that such lawsuits are: . . . changing and complicating the lives of millions of American professionals in ways that confound common sense and cast a shadow over a system that can, at its best, offer people relief and redress from legitimate grievances. Even former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger commented that such evidence of class action abuses in State and county courthouses: . . . gives me great concern that the rights of truly injured individual plaintiffs, as well as the rights of corporate defendants, have fallen victim to manipulation, and even evasion, of settled rules--rules that, no less than financial disclosure laws, are intended to ensure openness and accountability, as well as fundamental fairness, in the judicial resolution of major disputes with national consequences. Ultimately, the real losers of a broken class action system are not businesses or consumers. Rather, it is the American public's overall confidence in the legal system that will suffer unless a sensible class action reform package, such as that contained in the compromise, is enacted into law. Bipartisan legislation addressing the class action system's most egregious abuses is long overdue. This carefully balanced compromise that is now before the Senate will make a real difference in reducing the abuse and manipulation of the class action system. It would restore class actions to their original noble purpose as a force for positive change in society, and I urge my colleagues not to let this golden opportunity be squandered. I know time is getting short. My colleague from Illinois was here, and he would like to be heard on this matter. Let me return to where I started. I spent a lot of time on this measure. I think we have written a very good bill. I would not claim that this bill is perfect. There are some colleagues who fundamentally disagree with me on this issue, and I respect their views. What I cannot tolerate, however, is the procedure under which this bill is going to be considered. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle with whom I worked very closely, if you constrain this institution's ability to offer either nongermane or germane amendments to this bill, then this Senator will not be able to support the motion to invoke cloture. We failed to invoke cloture by only one vote last October. Although I care about this bill very much, I care far more about the Senate and how we do our business. It is going to disappoint me terribly to have to vote against cloture. But if you constrain the ability of Members of this body to offer specific amendments, then this Senator is going to have to wait for another day to fully consider this measure. There are many people across this country who believe we put together a good compromise, but I am not going to vote for a compromise that doesn't allow the Senate to work its will on this important matter. I realize my time has expired.

Mr. DODD. Could I finish? I only have a limited amount of time, and I apologize, and I will get through this statement. These moderate changes to the Federal diversity statute were included in the original legislation that came before the Senate last October. Under the compromise, however, we further refine these provisions to address two important concerns that were not fully taken into account in the earlier bill. I want to especially commend Senator Feinstein of California for her leadership in helping to clarify these issues, both during the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of the earlier measure and in the discussions that led to this compromise. First, the compromise responds to concerns that the original bill did not adequately address the handful of small, rural State courts that have increasingly become a magnet for more and more nationwide class actions. Such ``magnet jurisdictions'' have tended to have lax class certification requirements, and have been less than rigorous in reviewing proposed settlements. In fact, one of the most flagrant abuses of the current class action system occurs when lawyers ``forum shop'' that is, invent an injured class and then file a national class action in a ``magnet jurisdiction'' where the judges are more likely to lend a sympathetic ear. Perhaps the most famous of these so-called ``magnet jurisdictions'' is Madison County, IL. According to a 2001 study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the per capita rate of class action filings was almost twice that of the second-ranking jurisdiction in the United States. In recent years, the study found that class action filings in Madison County increased by 1,850 percent during the period between 1998 and 2001. Although the population of Madison County is only 250,000, it ranks third nationwide in the number of class actions filed each year, behind only Los Angeles County, CA and Cook County, IL.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation with my colleague, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-UT. This legislation will provide the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the opportunity to put a design of their choice on the reverse side of a quarter coin. These jurisdictions were inadvertently excluded from the 50 States Quarter Commemorative Coin Program Act, Public Law 105-124, that gave each State the same right in 1997. As part of the 50 State Quarter Program, over twenty-two billion quarter coins representing 27 states have been minted. All the coins are minted according to the year each State ratified the Constitution of the United States or were admitted into the Union. Although States have appropriate latitude, there are limitations as to what can be used as a design. According to Public Law 105-124, the Secretary of the Treasury has the final approval of each design. The law gives clear guidance as to what is an acceptable design concept. Suitable design concepts include State landmarks, landscapes, historically significant buildings, symbols of State resources or industries, official State flora and fauna, State icons, and outlines of States. Among the examples of suitable coins already in circulation year New York's Statue of Liberty, Missouri's depiction of Lewis and Clark as they paddled down the Missouri River with the Gateway Arch in the background, and North Carolina's first successful airplane flight. The District of Columbia has been the unfortunate target of acts of terror, yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their security. Citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just like every other American. In fact on a per capita basis, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have absolutely no say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent. This legislation is a reminder of the importance of including all Americans in the symbols of American citizenship. The residents of the District are American citizens, despite their lack of voting representation in the Congress. I believe that the least that we can do is allow the residents of the District of Columbia, as citizens of the United States, to commemorate the symbols of their own jurisdiction. The 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act of 1997 states that ``Congress finds that it is appropriate and timely to honor the unique Federal Republic of 50 States that comprise the United States; and to promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth of the United States about the individual states, their history and geography, and the rich diversity of the national heritage'' and to encourage ``young people and their families to collect memorable tokens of all of the States for the face value of the coins.'' I believe that it is of significant importance to America's youth to better understand and honor the rich, vibrant history of our nation's capital and territories, as well as that of our states. I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation with my colleague, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-UT. This legislation will provide the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the opportunity to put a design of their choice on the reverse side of a quarter coin. These jurisdictions were inadvertently excluded from the 50 States Quarter Commemorative Coin Program Act, Public Law 105-124, that gave each State the same right in 1997. As part of the 50 State Quarter Program, over twenty-two billion quarter coins representing 27 states have been minted. All the coins are minted according to the year each State ratified the Constitution of the United States or were admitted into the Union. Although States have appropriate latitude, there are limitations as to what can be used as a design. According to Public Law 105-124, the Secretary of the Treasury has the final approval of each design. The law gives clear guidance as to what is an acceptable design concept. Suitable design concepts include State landmarks, landscapes, historically significant buildings, symbols of State resources or industries, official State flora and fauna, State icons, and outlines of States. Among the examples of suitable coins already in circulation year New York's Statue of Liberty, Missouri's depiction of Lewis and Clark as they paddled down the Missouri River with the Gateway Arch in the background, and North Carolina's first successful airplane flight. The District of Columbia has been the unfortunate target of acts of terror, yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their security. Citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just like every other American. In fact on a per capita basis, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have absolutely no say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent. This legislation is a reminder of the importance of including all Americans in the symbols of American citizenship. The residents of the District are American citizens, despite their lack of voting representation in the Congress. I believe that the least that we can do is allow the residents of the District of Columbia, as citizens of the United States, to commemorate the symbols of their own jurisdiction. The 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act of 1997 states that ``Congress finds that it is appropriate and timely to honor the unique Federal Republic of 50 States that comprise the United States; and to promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth of the United States about the individual states, their history and geography, and the rich diversity of the national heritage'' and to encourage ``young people and their families to collect memorable tokens of all of the States for the face value of the coins.'' I believe that it is of significant importance to America's youth to better understand and honor the rich, vibrant history of our nation's capital and territories, as well as that of our states. I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the lamentable situation in Haiti. After suffering political upheaval and widespread violence over the last few months, the Haitian people are now facing even more desperate circumstances. During the last 2 weeks of May, floods devastated major sections of Haiti and parts of the Dominican Republic. The death toll in Haiti has reached nearly 2,600 people not including the missing and medical personnel expect that number to climb higher as the waters recede and reclamation efforts become possible. In the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe, aid workers, Haitian officials, and foreign troops--including U.S. soldiers scrambled to prevent the crisis from worsening. They have been delivering emergency supplies of food and water, building temporary housing, and working to prevent the spread of disease. I am concerned, however, by reports that the efforts are sorely under-funded and risk being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the disaster. Doctors are struggling to combat outbreaks of malaria and dengue, and the New York Times reports that aid workers were using mules for transportation, since the U.S. military is no longer airlifting aid to isolated communities. The U.S. Agency for International Development has pledged $50,000 in emergency aid, but we ought to do much more. I wish I could say that the devastation was solely an act of nature, but it was not. Had these same rains fallen over Florida, the damage would have been much less severe and the death toll would be in the single digits instead of the thousands. As my esteemed colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, described in his statement on June 1st, Haiti's economic underdevelopment exacerbated the effects of the flooding. Widespread deforestation of hillsides meant that, when the rains came, there was nothing to hold the soil in place. The subsequent landslides devastated many of the villages. And without roads and emergency services, there was no way to evacuate the Haitians who were caught in the path of the floods. Yet the devastation is not over. For the tens of thousands of Haitians who were left homeless, whose crops were destroyed, and whose communities were razed by the floodwaters, the next few months will be a struggle between life and death. It pains me to say that the floods are only the most recent setback for a country already struggling to overcome economic and social crises. Haiti, by most measures, is the poorest country in the hemisphere with nearly 80 percent of its population living in abject poverty. The life expectancy has fallen to 52 years and more than 6 percent of Haitians are infected with the HIV virus. In recent years Haiti has become a major trans-shipment point for cocaine trafficking. The State Department, in its annual Narcotics Control Strategy Report, describes Haiti as, ``a key conduit for drug traffickers transporting cocaine from South America to the United States.'' Sadly, more than half of all Haitians are unable to participate in the formal economy, and, as a consequence, many of these people turn to the illegal drug trade as a source of income. This influx of drug money into Haiti has further eroded the rule-of- law. Corruption now seems endemic in even the highest levels of government and private enterprise. Not all the news from Haiti is bad, however. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister [Gerard] Latortue while he was visiting Washington. I was impressed by his vision for Haiti, and encouraged by the efforts he has made since his appointment to stabilize the country. During our meeting, Prime Minister Latortue emphasized the need for major improvements in infrastructure, particularly in the power sector. He also stressed to me the urgent need for capacity-building amongst government institutions which cannot carry out their responsibilities without the trained personnel and resources to do so. Unfortunately the Bush Administration has been extremely slow to respond to Prime Minister Latortue's requests for aid. President Aristide was deposed in late February, but it wasn't until late May-- nearly 3 months later--that the Administration finally cobbled together a $160 million aid package for Haiti--$60 million of which was already in the pipeline before the February departure of President Aristide. I'm afraid that the amount they have allotted, about $20 per Haitian, is too little, too late. This lukewarm response only continues a trend in the Bush administration's policy toward Haiti. Since 2000, the U.S. Government has taken a shameful, hands-off approach to Haiti, turning its back on a growing crisis. After the Bush administration facilitated President Aristide's removal, citing his incompetence as the justification for supporting the involuntary departure of an elected president, one would have hoped that there was some sense of obligation on the part of the administration to do right by the Haitian people. Sadly, that sense of obligation is minimal at best, even in the face of the natural disaster that has recently befallen the Haitian people. So what should the U.S. response be to the political, economic, and social crises in Haiti? Should we continue the hands-off approach of the Bush administration? Or, should we offer Haiti a hand up? I believe that we have a special obligation to help Haiti, and I'm offering three proposals for how we can do that. First, we should halt the removal of the 1,900 U.S. troops currently stationed in Haiti. Prime Minister Latortue has asked that we extend the U.S. military presence, fearing that U.S. troops are the only ones capable of dissuading further violence. The original decision to depart upon the arrival of the Brazilian-led UN Peacekeeping force was made before last month's flooding--and before the destabilizing effects of the current humanitarian crisis. Let me take a moment here to talk about the security situation. Many have speculated about the re-establishment of the Haitian Army. Because this is ultimately a question for the Haitian people to answer-- especially in light of the Haitian Army's history of abuses--I believe that the decision should be left for the next elected government to address. Given the scarcity of resources and the absence of a specific national security mission, I for one believe that reestablishing the army is a luxury that Haiti can ill afford. In any event, the current caretaker government should concern itself with establishing domestic stability and security, preparing for elections, and, most critical of all, working to end the current humanitarian crisis. The Bush administration can help the LaTortue government move forward with its stated agenda by working with the international community and the Haitian National Police to establish the rule of law. Clearly reestablishing security requires that we step up efforts to disarm all the various illegal armed groups. So far less than 200 arms have been rounded up. And the focus seems to be solely on Aristide supporters, not the armed thugs who have perpetrated a reign of terror throughout the countryside for the last nine months. Next, in accordance with the resolution agreed upon by the Organization of American States, we must undertake to foster full restoration of democracy in Haiti. Our first obligation is to get to the bottom of allegations that the United States participated in the ouster of President Aristide. The OAS has just begun an investigation into the matter, and we should cooperate fully to dispel any myths or redress any errors. My last proposal is for a $1 billion emergency aid package for Haiti over the next 4 years. If we are willing to devote hundreds of billions of dollars for the endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq--half a world away--doesn't it make sense for us to devote a fraction of that amount to assist one of our nearest and most impoverished neighbors? Announcing a multiyear aid package, we demonstrate our commitment to the Haitian people and also serve as an example for others in the international community to offer up multiyear assistance packages as well. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in March, getting it right in Haiti this time, ``means keeping international attention and resources engaged for the long haul.'' It is long past time for the United States to address the mounting crisis in Haiti. It is time for us to offer the Haitian people a hand up. Toward that end, I believe that this body should give serious consideration to making a down payment on the $1 billion aid proposal for Haiti in the FY 2005 Appropriations process when the Senate deals with this legislation. Only through concrete and meaningful U.S. assistance on a scale commensurate with Haiti's needs can we ever hope to reverse the misery, suffering, and hopelessness that have become commonplace in the lives of close neighbors--8 million of them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senate amendment No. 3401 is acceptable to both the chair and ranking member. This amendment would reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, or the FIRE Act, for the next 6 years. It is based on bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator DeWine and myself on May 11, 2004. The bill, S. 2411, currently has 39 co- sponsors, including the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As many of our colleagues know, the Senate approved by unanimous consent the original FIRE Act as part of the Defense Authorization bill 4 years ago. There is some precedent, then, for this amendment to the current Defense Authorization bill, despite the fact that the legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee. Unless Congress quickly reauthorizes the FIRE Act grant program, it will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2004. If this legislation is not quickly enacted, fire departments throughout the Nation will not receive the assistance they need to fight fires, save lives, and protect their own. I have consulted with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee about the urgency of reauthorizing the FIRE Act before the fiscal year ends. He is fully aware of the fact that we have precious few legislative days left on the Senate Calendar. Accordingly, he has indicated to me his intention to hold a hearing on the reauthorization bill on July 8, with a markup to follow before the August recess. Assuming that this schedule holds firm, my expectation is that legislation passed by the Commerce Committee would take the place of amendment No. 3401. In the event that work on the Defense Authorization Act is not completed this year, I am also prepared to move the FIRE Act reauthorization as a free-standing bill. Alternatively, should the Commerce Committee not act on this legislation, the Senate will have at least acted to reauthorize the FIRE Act adopting amendment No. 3401. In closing, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, and his unwavering commitment over the years to advancing the cause of firefighters. I also commend Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their willingness to help the Nation's fire services on the Defense Authorization bill both today and 4 years ago. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Senator Hollings for his wise counsel and strong support for the FIRE Act initiative. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Certainly.

Mr. DODD. I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator Levin this morning. We had a very good debate a few days ago about this amendment. At the suggestion of my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, we modified the amendment that is now before this body. The modification, very quickly, deletes the prohibition on using private contractors in combat situations. I will not belabor the point. There are existing statutes that provide for such restrictions, but the suggestion of the chairman was that that provision was going to be a rather complicated matter to deal with here, so we have taken it out--it is no longer part of the amendment. Instead, the amendment as modified would merely ask the Secretary of Defense to review and report to Congress on U.S. laws and policies as they relate to the use of contractors by the Defense Department and the Uniformed Services in combat operations. What is still part of this amendment is the prohibition on using private contractors for the purposes of interrogation of prisoners. It would, however, give the President some flexibility in phasing in this prohibition by providing limited waiver authority for the use of such contractors in interrogations--both as translators and as actual interrogators. The presidential waiver for translators would be extended for 1 year, and for contractors acting solely as interrogators, the waiver would be effective for 90 days from the date of enactment of this legislation. Why do I offer this amendment? I didn't bring charts or photographs to the floor of the events that occurred in Abu Ghraib prison late last fall or early this winter. Those photographs are very disturbing and can create their own sense of emotion. I am not interested in doing that today. But suffice it to say, there is ample evidence. So today we know at least that interrogations were conducted by private contractors hired by the Department of the Interior, of all agencies, to do interrogations, intelligence work in Iraq and maybe elsewhere, on Guantanamo or Afghanistan as well. The military believes, I believe, and I think most of us believe that this job of interrogation ought not be done by private contractors. This ought to be inherently a governmental function, and one that is not shopped out or outsourced, if you will, to others, where there is no accountability, no chain of command, no responsibility, and virtual immunity if they do anything wrong under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I will cite briefly memos and directives from the Department of the Army strongly urging that we not contract out this function. I strongly agree with these opinions because, first, we obviously have suffered terribly in the public relations field as a result of what happened, and we certainly know that private contracting was part of the problem; and, second, with 135,000 of our troops serving in Iraq, 20,000 serving in Afghanistan, and others serving around the globe today, we do not need to have these young men, and women in many cases, be potentially subjected to reprisals as a result of our mismanagement of the interrogation process in Iraq and possibly elsewhere. This is an important amendment. We have all been through this recently. Again, I am not charting new ground. As we know, in fact, at hearings chaired last month by the chairman of the committee here, it was made very clear, especially in the testimony and comprehensive report of General Taguba, a number of contractors may have played significant roles as interrogators in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Their abusive practices have compromised our interests in Iraq, and it remains to be seen whether they will ever be held accountable. Military people can. But contractors, such as those hired by the Department of Interior, may be outside the scope of legal jurisdictions. Again, I am not the only one who believes that intelligence functions, particularly gathering intelligence through interrogations, should be carried out by Government personnel rather than contractors. A December 26, 2000, Department of the Army memo dealing with exempting Army intelligence functions from privatization came to the same conclusion: At a tactical level, the intelligence function under the operational control of the Army performed by the military . . . is an inherently Governmental function barred from private sector performance. They are exactly right. It ought to be an inherently governmental function. Outsourcing, where there is no accountability, where you don't have any ability to subject them to criminal prosecution if they do something wrong, I think, is dangerous business. It is dangerous business in the intelligence area. The report went on to say: At the operational and strategic level, the intelligence function performed by the military personnel and Federal civilian employees is a non-inherently governmental function that should be exempted from private sector performance on the basis of risk to national security from relying on contractors to perform this function. Nor was this view limited solely to the previous administration in 2000. Thomas White, former Secretary of the Army in the current administration, also expressed his opposition to hiring contractors to question prisoners, stating in an interview that ``the basic process of interrogation . . . should be kept in-house, on the Army side.'' He is right. That is exactly where it ought to be. This is dangerous business to go through. I was stunned to learn that the Department of the Interior the was actually the agency through which some of these contracts were awarded. No one knew to whom these contractors reported, what the chain of command was, or what sort of supervision there was. We are in a new age since 9/11. You have to get people who can speak the language, who know what they are doing. We are in the world of terrorism. The President had it right last night. There is yet no horizon in this war on terrorism. It is going to be here for a long time. We better wake up, and if we need people to speak a language then we ought to hire them and train them. It is almost 3 years since 9/11. The fact that we need to put ads in the Washington Post to find people who can speak Arabic is ridiculous. We ought to get about the business of hiring people and training them. We need interrogators. We need the human intelligence capacity. I am all for fancy satellites and technology, but if you don't have people on the ground who can talk to these people and understand what they are saying, your intelligence is going to suffer. Again, this practice of hiring contractors to perform interrogations is simply bad business. It goes beyond just the ugly photographs and the outrageous behavior that has cost us terribly in Iraq and elsewhere in our efforts at winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. And my amendment is limited in scope. It merely says that with respect to interrogations, the Department of Defense would have to hire people within the governmental framework to do the job. On the translations, I will give you a year. You can use people outside if you want, but after a year let's get some people within the operations themselves who know what they are doing. The other sections of my amendment deal briefly with the transfer of prisoners. In September, it will be 3 years since the horrific events of 9/11. It is high time that the administration moved forward to build a capacity, in-house, to ensure that our intelligence gathering capacity, including interrogation personnel, is adequate to meet the threats that we confront. Giving the administration unlimited access to contractors by extending the waiver for interrogators beyond 90 days does not serve our national interest. I would remind my fellow colleagues that the world has changed dramatically over the past three years. Part of the current mission in Iraq is a larger and absolutely critical mission that we are going to be confronting every single day for the foreseeable future in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Spain--and the list goes on and on--and elsewhere around the globe. In order to be prepared for that war, we must have within our own governmental structure the expertise to garner intelligence, including intelligence gleaned through interrogations. The notion that we can simply outsource this critical responsibility when terrorist incidents spike the demand for interrogation skills by our Government seems to be the height of irresponsibility. We were sidetracked a bit during the debate on Monday. As I said earlier, the chairman made a very good point in the area of combat missions. It is not a clear line. So we put that aside. But on interrogations, this is inherently a governmental function and we shouldn't be contracting out that function. That is my point. I hope my colleagues will agree with us. I know the administration has some problems with it, but the fact is, let us get about the business of doing our job here and not endangering our own troops--which is what I worry about. The bottom line, one that I believe I share with every parent, sibling, or child who has a relative or a friend serving in these dangerous zones. I don't want our brave men and women, if they are apprehended, to go through what we saw happen to some of these Iraqi prisoners. These abuses put Americans at risk, in my view, if we don't get this business straight. I am determined to see that we fix this situation. I hope my colleagues will support this. Let me withhold the remainder of my time.

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think I have made the case. I will just summarize it for you here. Since September 11, we have been in a different world. Developing our capacity and our ability to conduct interrogations, to be able to understand the languages of other peoples so we understand what is going on, is critically important. And our ability to have inhouse, within our military services, the capacity to conduct one of the most important functions--that is, to conduct interrogations and gather intelligence that protects our men and women in uniform--should not be outsourced to people whose major qualification is a bachelor of arts degree. These young people who are being trained in the military may be young, but they are trained interrogators. That is what we ought to be doing. We have 539 new ones, in addition to the ones who exist today, coming out of school soon. We ought to be saying--as the military has asked us now for 4 years--do not contract this out. This administration's most recent Secretary of the Army said: Do not contract this out. This ought to be an inherently governmental function: to conduct interrogations, to gather intelligence, to protect our men and women in uniform, and to advance our cause. The idea, somehow, that this is going to slow us down or make us incapable of doing our job is foolishness. We all know what is going to happen. If we have a partisan debate here that rejects the idea that we ought to have an in-house capacity in intelligence areas, then the Army, or some in the military, will read that as a signal that they can continue doing what they are doing. That is dangerous, in my view, dangerous when you have a Department of the Interior agency actually doing the contracting out to private companies, where the desired capability, according to their own Web site, is not much more than a bachelor of arts degree. That is it. It is the 21st century. The war is on terrorism. Let's wake up. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reject the tabling motion.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I yield 30 seconds to my distinguished ranking member.

Mr. DODD. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. No. They are not out of business at all. The interrogations would have to be done by governmental authorities. You can bring back military people to do it. There are plenty of guys who can do it, if we put them back on active duty. This is not an overly burdensome problem. The question is, here we are debating the Defense authorization bill and we have been confronted which a huge problem that galvanized the world's attention only a few days ago. We know that part of the problem was because we had people who were not being held accountable and who have little or no supervision. At least we know that much already. In the midst of this debate, should we step up and try to do something about that problem? If the argument is that we have no in-house capacity to fill 40 or 50 slots in Guantanamo, or maybe an equal amount in Iraq with 135,000 U.S. forces there and 20,000 in Afghanistan, the idea that we can't find people within the military services to fill 40 or 50 slots, then I don't accept it as a legitimate argument against this amendment. They may want to keep contracting and have these contractors go through the Department of the Interior, but that is wrong, in my view, and I think it is dangerous. The military has said--I am not opposed to what their thinking is--categorically it ought not be done there. It is dangerous. It causes us problems and it is causing our military personnel problems. It ought to be changed. I don't buy for a single second, with thousands of people serving in that theater, the idea we can't find people within our own ranks to do this job.

Mr. DODD. First of all, let me respond to my friend from Colorado. My amendment grants the President waiver authority in the case of translators for over a year. We are about to graduate from the training school for Army intelligence in Arizona this year 539 interrogators within the Army. Here we are talking about 20 or 40 positions in Guantanamo Bay of interrogators--but we have 539 people this year who are going to graduate within the Army as interrogators. We know that at least some of the private contractors hired through Department of Interior contracts for interrogations are not well trained. A bachelor of arts degree will get you a job as interrogator. This situation is a mess. We know it is a mess. We have 539 people--double the number from last year--graduating this year. Why are we continuing a system that does not work where the Army themselves have said, stop it? We need to listen and stop it. One of the most outrageous examples is the effort in Iraq. An outrageous situation occurred just days ago because the system has fallen apart. Do not tell me we will lose our capacity to interrogate people. That is hyperbole when you have 539 people about to graduate in addition to the ones we have in uniform today to do the job. We know that having private contractors participate in interrogations is a problem. The Army has said that it is a problem. The most recent Secretary of the Army said it is a problem, and to stop it. The question is, will we do it here, today? Do we understand what happened here just a few days ago? Do we understand the problems it has caused? A recent public opinion poll by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq shows us that a majority of Iraqis believe that all Americans conduct themselves in the way they saw in the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib. But that is not us. I know people in uniform do a better job than someone who has been plucked off the street under a contract by the Department of Interior to do the job of intelligence. This is intelligence capacity. You do not outsource and farm that out to an unaccountable contractor with little or no experience in interrogations. Don't Members understand what happened here a few days ago, how much trouble our country is in? We have 539 people about to graduate in the military services to conduct interrogations, and you are telling me we do not have enough and we cannot train people in uniform to do the job? I don't believe it. The American people do not, the international community does not. This is not a complicated amendment. Let's wake up.

Mr. DODD. That would be over a year from today.

Mr. DODD. Interrogators.

Mr. DODD. I don't ascribe to that. First, the analysts are not included; it is just the interrogators. The idea that you are going to have people who are immune from prosecution, accountable to no one, with little supervision, or literally none in many cases, I think is a far more inherently dangerous problem than the difficulty in finding 30 or 40 people within the military structure to perform interrogations. I would point out this job posting, which is from the Web site of CACI International, one of the companies that does interrogations for the Department of Defense. This is what it says you ought to be: The position requires a bachelor's degree, or equivalent, of 6 or 7 years of related experience--whatever that is--preferably in the intelligence field; requires a clearance, strong writing and briefing skills, with competency in automation research in basic software. This is hardly the job description of someone who is so unique that we can't find the personnel within our own uniformed services.

Mr. DODD. The Senator is correct--90 days I think after the----

Mr. DODD. Just interrogations.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I don't believe necessarily that the military doesn't have the capacity to do this. But the idea that the Department of the Interior is contracting out to private firms to conduct this function, when we have seen already the results when this matter gets out of hand because you have rogue elements doing it--we have suffered terribly as a result of this tremendous abuse that has gone on. I don't buy the idea that we can't get this straight. I think we can get it straight. There are plenty of people within the military services who can perform this function. And I don't put the same limitations on translators. I am giving a year to get that in shape. The idea that somehow the military shouldn't be doing this--I didn't make this up; this isn't made out of whole cloth. The military themselves, going back several years, has said that this function should not be performed by outside contractors. In fact, the most recent former Secretary of the Army said this.

Mr. DODD. Translators are not an issue.

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