Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will join my good friend from Alaska shortly, but this amendment I have offered says to let the people we are going to get into the situation decide. Some people think we ought not be involved with this. I respect their position, but I disagree. If we are going to get involved with narcotraffickers who are as well heeled and financed as any military group in the world, if we are going to do the job right and properly, we ought to let the military people decide what they need. My amendment says to let the military people decide what works best. Let me read what 24 of our aviation experts sent to Colombia specifically for the purpose of trying to determine what equipment would work best had to say on the impact of substituting 60 Hueys for 30 Blackhawks, as originally proposed: The superior troop-carrying capacity and range of the Blackhawk versus the Huey, coupled with the combat nature of the operations, the requirement to operate at high altitude areas and the increased survivability of both aircrew and troops, clearly indicate that the Blackhawk is the helicopter that should be fielded to Colombia in supporting the counterdrug effort. Additionally, the number of acquired pilots, crew chiefs, gunners, and mechanics to operate and maintain the Hueys is twice that of the Blackhawks. Infrastructure requirements, maintenance, building, parking, and refueling areas, as well as other associated building requirements, are essentially double to support the 60 Hueys as opposed to the 30 Blackhawks. If this issue were to be decided strictly on dollars and cents--put aside the issue of whether or not one piece of equipment is better than the next--the 18 Hueys that are there, plus the 60 they talk about sending, those numbers exceed what it would cost in order to have the equipment that the military says they need to do the job. These are the numbers from the military. I am not suggesting you blindly follow the military in every case. But my amendment says at least let them make a recommendation as to what they think is right. It doesn't say you have to take the Blackhawk. It says make the proper, intelligent decision. We heard from my colleague from Rhode Island, a graduate of West Point Academy, who served with distinction in the U.S. military for a career. He was just in Colombia, along with others, going down to assess what makes the best sense. He comes back with the same conclusion: We ought to let the military people decide. I have been to Colombia many times. I know that terrain, where the flatlands are, where most of this problem exists. If I can get that chart here which shows the map of Colombia? Let me make the point again. When you get down to the area where most of the narcotraffickers operate, that is jungle. That is down along that Ecuadorian border, the Putumayo River. There are no roads here at all. The roads end up here in the highlands. The idea that you are going to have the capacity to handle 90 helicopters--they do not have the personnel in Colombia to do that. If you want to condemn this program to failure, then demand this language be in this amendment. The change we are offering at least offers this program a much higher chance of success down the road by allowing 60 Blackhawks, which every military expert who has looked at this says is what you ought to have to deal with the altitude of the Andes because of its lift capacity, personnel capacity to be able to move into this area, and the speed to move in and out. Again, it seems to me, if you look at the charts, on all the comparisons here, using 1976 equipment--the last year the Huey was made--as opposed to a modern piece of equipment is wrong. Unless you think this is not an issue worth fighting over, if you think you want to have these narcotraffickers control this country and take over this place and ship on an hourly basis to this country the drugs that are killing 50,000 people a year, we ought not support it at all. But if you are going to do it and you think it is worthy of doing, then do it right. Do it with the kind of equipment that will guarantee at least a higher possibility of success, or we will end up doing it ourselves down the road, which I don't welcome at all. We now have Colombians who can fly these helicopters or can be trained to do so. Let them do the job. If we send in inferior equipment that can't get the job done, the problem gets worse, the situation gets worse, and then we will be regretting the day we made a political decision about the Hueys rather than a military decision about what works best. I urge colleagues, regardless of their position on whether or not this is a program they want to support, to support this amendment which says this decision ought to be left to the people who make the calculated determinations of what works best. That is all this amendment does. It does not demand a Blackhawk. It just says make the decision about what makes the best sense. I will live with whatever decision that is. But I don't want to have a political decision, I don't want to be told I have to accept 60 or 90 Hueys, when I know in Colombia you don't have the personnel to support it. It will take too long, you will never get it done, and you don't have the capacity to get the job accomplished. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment when it comes to a vote. I think my colleague from Connecticut wants to be heard on this issue. I don't know how the chairman of the committee wants to handle this. I would like to be excused for about an hour to attend a very important medal ceremony for one of our colleagues.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered would restore the FY 2001 appropriations for Peace Corps programs to FY 2000 appropriations levels. Today, approximately 7000 Americans are Peace Corps volunteers. They are recent college graduates, mid-career professionals, and retired seniors. They live and work in the far corners of the globe--in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Pacific. As we consider this matter, American volunteers are diligently working to improve the lives of citizens in 77 countries throughout the world. Mr. President, the President has requested $275 million in appropriations for FY 2001. While I would like to see this Senate approve an amendment to increase funding in this bill to meet the administration's request, I am simply asking that the Senate restore funding to the FY 2000 levels. My request of my colleagues is a modest one--their support for an amendment to raise funding in this bill for the Peace Corps by $24 million--from $220 million to $244 million--to bring the FY 2001 appropriations for this agency up to this fiscal year's appropriations. This amendment does not add any new money to the bill, but rather allows the Clinton administration to use unearmarked funds already appropriated in this bill. Absent adoption of this amendment, the Appropriations Committee mark will reduce funding for the upcoming fiscal year by 10 percent over the current fiscal year's funding for the Peace Corps. What are the consequences of such reductions in funding? Peace Corps posts will have to be shut down in as many as eleven countries; The number of new volunteers accepted by the agency will have to be cut by 16 percent, some 1,250 fewer individuals will have the honor of serving their country; Plans for new initiatives to enable Peace Corps volunteers to bring the benefits of information technology to underserved communities throughout the world and to bolster HIV/AIDS prevention priorities in Africa and elsewhere will fall by the wayside; New country programs will remain unfunded; The agency's ability to provide future emergency assistance through its newly established Crisis Corps of returned volunteers to respond to the devastation of unanticipated disasters such as those experienced in Central America following the 1998 devastation of Hurricane Mitch will be severely impaired. Finally it will undermine the Agency's ability to replace outdated computer systems in order to meet government financial management requirements, not terribly exciting but very important to the overall functioning of the Peace Corps as an organization. The funding level in the bill is totally inconsistent with what the Congress did in 1999. Last year the Congress went on record in support of increased funding for the Peace Corps for FY 2001 to $298 million--beyond the Administration's request--in order to support an increase in Peace Corps volunteers. I am not asking the Senate to vote on an increase of that magnitude today. I am simply asking support for a steady state budget. Mr. President, thirty-four years ago, I was a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic. My two years as a volunteer had a profound impact on my life. I will treasure my Peace Corps experience forever-- as will nearly every returned Peace Corps volunteer one meets. Next year the Peace Corps will celebrate its 40th anniversary. It is important that we insure that the agency is sufficiently funded to live up to the expectations that its success has engendered throughout the world. For these reasons I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the restoration of funding for the Peace Corps.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in one minute: The amendment I am proposing along with my colleague from Connecticut and others merely says the decision on which type of equipment will be used in the Colombian effort ought to be determined by the U.S. military in conjunction with the Colombian military. The present language requires specifically a Huey helicopter. I do not think that decision ought to be made by Members of Congress, necessarily. The military categorically, in a 24-member review of what was needed to make the program in Colombia successful, requests that it be the Blackhawk helicopter. In a letter from the Colombian Ministry of Defense they specifically request it. They would have to change their entire infrastructure to handle a Huey helicopter. The cost is excessive--more than the Blackhawk. The amendment doesn't say buy Blackhawks, it says let the military make the decision. Congress ought not be mandating the kind of equipment that is going to help best to make this work. Our amendment allows for the experts to make the decision, not Members of Congress. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I am going to make a suggestion before my colleague makes it. There are at least two other people who I know want to speak on the amendment I am going to offer. I am worried about the timing. If we schedule a vote at 4 p.m. and I presume a vote on my amendment to follow immediately thereafter----

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment 3524.

Mr. DODD. I am.

Mr. DODD. Briefly. I will not take a lot of time. I know the chairman wants to move this bill along.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today to pay tribute to a well-respected and remarkable public servant, Ms. Alice M. McCue, who has worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford since 1945. On June 25th, the Department of Veterans Affairs will recognize her 55 years of service to our nation's veterans, and I want to take a few moments to discuss Alice McCue's remarkable career. Alice started working for the VA following her graduation from high school at Mt. St. Joseph Academy in Hartford. She began in 1945 as a typist in the Communications and Records Section, and moved to the Administrative Division in 1949. Between 1950 and 1978, Alice held a number of different positions, including several years as a clerk in the office of the Chief Attorney. Since that time, Alice has been a Veterans Claims Examiner. Alice has been a constant force since her first days of employment. Her hard work and dedication to the veterans of Connecticut have earned her a number of awards and special accommodations. Alice received five Special Contribution Awards over the past several years, as well as a Time-Off Award in 1995, the same year in which she was the recipient of a Superior Performance Award. Over the years, Alice was involved in a plethora of activities at the VA's Hartford office and became an integral component of every project in which she was engaged. In the State Income Verification Match Project, she handled several hundred cases. She also worked on the Social Security Unverified Match Project, the Committee on Waivers and Compromises, and as an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor and Third Party Inquiry Coordinator for the Social Security Administration. Alice's influence at the VA is perhaps most truly reflected by her colleagues' words of praise. They describe her as a dependable, hard- working, and professional employee and friend. She not only treats every case as if it was her own, but she also takes the time to assist other adjudicators with their cases. When it comes to training and teaching less-experienced employees, Alice is an indispensable asset, and many in the Hartford office have benefited from her guidance. Her supervisors further cite her willingness to handle the most complex cases as well as her amicable air and trustworthiness which have long bolstered office morale and increased the sense of community among the employees. On June 26, 2000, the Hartford regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs will hold a luncheon in honor of Alice, who will receive the Secretary's Service Award at that time. Today, it is my pleasure to join the Department of Veterans Affairs and the countless veterans and their families that Alice McCue has helped over the years, in thanking her for her exemplary service and commitment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will help light the way to a stronger educational system with broader reach and deeper substance--the SHARE Net (Saving Humanities, Arts, and Resources for Education Networking) Act of 2000. Education is not just about schools and colleges. Education is everything from our very first breath as infants to our last days. We learn at work, at school, at home and in our cars. We learn from the people around us, from books, newspapers, artwork, radio and television, and, more and more, we learn from the Internet and computers. Our Nation has been rich in learning and education. We have an impressive system of public education, with fundamentally strong public schools--yes, some need help, but they continue to reach all children and open the doors of learning to over 50 million children each year. The strength of our post-secondary education system is unmatched in the world with an estimated 80 percent of our high school graduates going on to some post-secondary education. We have public libraries across the country that contribute the building blocks of lifelong learning with educational programs and access to books and other educational resources for the public--from the youngest to the oldest. We enjoy significant cultural institutions--museums, art galleries and other centers--that allow us to explore and continue to learn. This infrastructure of learning has not been achieved without significant effort. From our very first days, leading Americans have dedicated time and resources to developing schools, universities and other institutions of learning. Thomas Jefferson viewed the creation of the University of Virginia as one of his greatest accomplishments. Other Americans are well known for their passion and vision for learning--from Helen Keller to the Little Rock 9. There have been many here in Congress too who have lead on education issues. We tend to remember the more recent steps--the creation of the Pell Grant program or Head Start. But in fact, our commitment and involvement in these issues began much earlier. I believe one of these most significant, and overlooked, initiatives was the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. These initiatives brought about a sea-change in our Nation's educational system by allocating the proceeds from the sale of federally-held western lands to states for the creation of practical, accessible Land Grant Colleges and Universities. These Land-Grant institutions sparked a revolution in higher education, which had been solely the purview of the wealthy and privileged; Land-Grant institutions focused on reaching real people with helpful knowledge. They focused on agriculture, teaching and research into other practical areas--they encouraged and facilitated broader participation in post- secondary education with low costs and continuing education programs. Today, Land Grant colleges and universities continue to fulfill their original missions of research, outreach and teaching. They have grown to be the very backbone of post-secondary education--providing access to quality, affordable higher education. These institutions have also emerged as leaders in advanced research--a vital link in our national economy and one of the keys to our global competitiveness. Morrill's vision was not only hugely successful, it was also simple-- leverage public assets to transform education. Mr. President, I believe another such opportunity confronts us today as rapidly-developing technology offers new potential to expand the reach of education. The 1996 Telecommunications Act and Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a framework for the transition from analog to digital television and for the auction of publically-owned analog spectrum. This auction is expected to produce nearly $6 billion in federal revenue; some believe the figure to be as much as $18 billion. This valuable publically-owned asset is today's equivalent of the frontier lands of a century ago. These resources should be tapped to fund the further development of our educational system by utilizing today's technologies to expand the reach and impact of existing high-quality educational and community resources. Advanced Internet, digital spectrum and other telecommunications technologies offer new untapped potential to increase the quality and reach of educational resources. And the educational resources are abundant in our communities. What is needed is a systematic effort to link these resources, enhance their accessibility and broaden their content. My bill would do just this. It would support the work of local and regional partnerships of educational and cultural organizations. These partnerships would survey existing resources, identify and fill gaps, link these resources together through technology and broaden access to them and, ultimately, develop a comprehensive, accessible high-tech educational infrastructure to benefit all Americans. Mr. President, there is no question our educational system is strong. But it cannot be neglected. So let's learn from the past success of the Morrill Acts and invest today's public resources in our greatest asset and the very foundation of our future: education.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise this today as an original cosponsor of the National and Community Service Act of 2000 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of the Corporation for National Service through this legislation. While Americans often wonder what, exactly, it is that the numerous agencies and commissions scattered around town do, it is quite clear what the Corporation for National Service does. It's members tutor and mentor at-risk youth. They build affordable housing and clean up the Nation's rivers, streams and parks. They help seniors live independent and productive lives. They provide assistance to the victims of natural disasters. And perhaps most importantly, they train others to do all of these tasks and dozens more--leveraging their numbers, multiplying their effect, addressing countless community needs. These are important tasks. They empower our citizens. They build our communities. They renew our country. That is what the Corporation for National Services does in my view--provide a true national service to the citizens of this country. The Corporation for National Service is one of the most impressive success stories in recent memory. The numbers are simply remarkable. Take the AmeriCorps initiative for example. Since it's inception in 1993, more than 150,000 Americans have served or are currently serving as AmeriCorps members. They have provided much-needed assistance to 33 million of their neighbors in more than 4,000 communities. Specifically, AmeriCorps members have helped nearly 3 million children succeed in school through tutoring and mentoring initiatives. They have worked with the police and other community organizations to safeguard our neighborhoods--establishing, operating and expanding over 40,000 safety patrols and working with 600,000 at-risk youth in after- school programs. AmeriCorps members have improved the daily lives of Americans by building or rehabilitating over 25,000 homes, working with 340,000 people to find jobs, and providing food, clothing and other necessities to over 2.5 million homeless people. With regard to our natural environmental, AmeriCorps members have planted over 50 million trees and removed 70,000 tons of trash from our neighborhoods. And when I talk about the leverage created through AmeriCorps members recruiting and training others, I am talking about nearly two million volunteers brought to bear on locally generated programs because of the efforts of AmeriCorps members. The National Senior Service Corps has been another resounding success. What Tom Brokaw has dubbed ``The Greatest Generation'' is still ready to meet the needs of their communities and they have been energized by the Corporation for National Service. With over 25,000 Foster Grandparents, 15,000 Senior companions and 467,000 Retired and Senior Volunteer Program members, nearly 250,000 children--including, 58,000 with learning disabilities or suffering from abuse and neglect-- have been given an invaluable source of loving care. Sixty-two thousand older Americans in need of a little extra help have been paired with Senior Corps members to make daily life more manageable. These Senior Corps members provide a critical bridge to independence for these seniors. Whether by helping with the daily tasks or simply being a friendly companion, these Senior Corps members are making a huge difference. Learn and Serve, yet another initiative of the Corporation for National service, has served more than 1.5 million students in kindergarten through college and helped them apply academic skills to meet community needs. It is an admirable track record of accomplishment, Mr. President. One that according to recent study returns $1.66 to the community for every dollar invested. While compiling the numbers, however, we often forget the impact this program has on those who dedicate themselves as volunteers. But we must not forget the impact that service has on those who give of themselves--their time and their energy--to make a difference. The personal satisfaction one receives from working for others is a feeling I can speak about personally. Long before AmeriCorps was a reality, I was Peace Corps volunteer in a small town in the Dominican Republic. But whether it is in the Dominican Republic or in my home state of Connecticut--or any state across this nation--there are many small towns that need help sustaining their educational system or providing health care to their neighbors or maintaining their environment or any number of areas. And an honest day's work on behalf of those efforts translates in any language. It is a source of tremendous satisfaction and pride. These are emotions that drive participants in either the PeaceCorps abroad or AmeriCorps here at home, to continue to work and continue to build their communities, something that can't be quantified. There is also a real period of personal learning that AmeriCorps members go through. A study by Aguirre International determined that ``participation in AmeriCorps results in substantial gains in life skills for more than three-quarters of the members'' who participate. When we talk about life skills here, we are talking about communications skills, interpersonal skills, analytical problem- solving, organizational skill and using information technology. These are necessary skills for the 21st century. AmeriCorps members take these skills with them after their term of service, back to employers who want them, back to communities who need them. The Corporation for National Service awakens in its members a strong ethic of civil responsibility and a lifelong desire to serve. By immersing its members in local, state and national issues, and asking them to address and interact with these issues, the Corporation for National Service is a catalyst for civic participation. And regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, I think we can all agree that an active and involved constituency is what we all hope for. Acorss the range of initiatives that I have touched upon today, are a couple of common themes. Primarily, these efforts are initiated from the ground-up. These programs were not crafted by Senators or Congressmen or someone employed here in Washington, they are generated by people within the community they serve and administered at the state level. That allows these programs the flexibility to take advantage of the individual strengths of each community and as a result, better address their needs. Secondly, these programs harness what we all know is the true strength of America, it's citizens. The corporation for National Service is channeling a constant flow of human energy, ingenuity, and talent into the states and communities of our country. The Corporation partners with organizations that have a proven track record to provide the necessary human resource to grow and expand these already successful programs. It is a model that works. It is an idea that has captured the imagination and harnessed the energy of this Nation. It is our responsibility to ensure that it continues. The legislation we offer today will ensure that the Corporation for National Service continues through 2005. It retains the successful structure of the system that has been so effective over the last seven years, but makes allowances for a few improvements in the overall program, including a more responsive effort to ensure an increased participation by people with disabilities and a recognition that Indian tribes are qualified organizations to receive grants. This is a good bill. I hope we can work with our colleagues in the House to ensure that legislation reauthorizing the Corporation for National Service is passed by both houses and sent to the president for signature this year.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will help light the way to a stronger educational system with broader reach and deeper substance--the SHARE Net (Saving Humanities, Arts, and Resources for Education Networking) Act of 2000. Education is not just about schools and colleges. Education is everything from our very first breath as infants to our last days. We learn at work, at school, at home and in our cars. We learn from the people around us, from books, newspapers, artwork, radio and television, and, more and more, we learn from the Internet and computers. Our Nation has been rich in learning and education. We have an impressive system of public education, with fundamentally strong public schools--yes, some need help, but they continue to reach all children and open the doors of learning to over 50 million children each year. The strength of our post-secondary education system is unmatched in the world with an estimated 80 percent of our high school graduates going on to some post-secondary education. We have public libraries across the country that contribute the building blocks of lifelong learning with educational programs and access to books and other educational resources for the public--from the youngest to the oldest. We enjoy significant cultural institutions--museums, art galleries and other centers--that allow us to explore and continue to learn. This infrastructure of learning has not been achieved without significant effort. From our very first days, leading Americans have dedicated time and resources to developing schools, universities and other institutions of learning. Thomas Jefferson viewed the creation of the University of Virginia as one of his greatest accomplishments. Other Americans are well known for their passion and vision for learning--from Helen Keller to the Little Rock 9. There have been many here in Congress too who have lead on education issues. We tend to remember the more recent steps--the creation of the Pell Grant program or Head Start. But in fact, our commitment and involvement in these issues began much earlier. I believe one of these most significant, and overlooked, initiatives was the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. These initiatives brought about a sea-change in our Nation's educational system by allocating the proceeds from the sale of federally-held western lands to states for the creation of practical, accessible Land Grant Colleges and Universities. These Land-Grant institutions sparked a revolution in higher education, which had been solely the purview of the wealthy and privileged; Land-Grant institutions focused on reaching real people with helpful knowledge. They focused on agriculture, teaching and research into other practical areas--they encouraged and facilitated broader participation in post- secondary education with low costs and continuing education programs. Today, Land Grant colleges and universities continue to fulfill their original missions of research, outreach and teaching. They have grown to be the very backbone of post-secondary education--providing access to quality, affordable higher education. These institutions have also emerged as leaders in advanced research--a vital link in our national economy and one of the keys to our global competitiveness. Morrill's vision was not only hugely successful, it was also simple-- leverage public assets to transform education. Mr. President, I believe another such opportunity confronts us today as rapidly-developing technology offers new potential to expand the reach of education. The 1996 Telecommunications Act and Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a framework for the transition from analog to digital television and for the auction of publically-owned analog spectrum. This auction is expected to produce nearly $6 billion in federal revenue; some believe the figure to be as much as $18 billion. This valuable publically-owned asset is today's equivalent of the frontier lands of a century ago. These resources should be tapped to fund the further development of our educational system by utilizing today's technologies to expand the reach and impact of existing high-quality educational and community resources. Advanced Internet, digital spectrum and other telecommunications technologies offer new untapped potential to increase the quality and reach of educational resources. And the educational resources are abundant in our communities. What is needed is a systematic effort to link these resources, enhance their accessibility and broaden their content. My bill would do just this. It would support the work of local and regional partnerships of educational and cultural organizations. These partnerships would survey existing resources, identify and fill gaps, link these resources together through technology and broaden access to them and, ultimately, develop a comprehensive, accessible high-tech educational infrastructure to benefit all Americans. Mr. President, there is no question our educational system is strong. But it cannot be neglected. So let's learn from the past success of the Morrill Acts and invest today's public resources in our greatest asset and the very foundation of our future: education.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Montana.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe this is the full text of the amendment. I just had several copies made for my colleagues. Let me inquire of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, did he get a copy of the amendment?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on either side?

Mr. DODD. This amendment is about the establishment of a commission on U.S. Cuban policy. This commission was recommended by Howard Baker, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Malcolm Wallop, and William Rogers. This is not lifting sanctions. This is not taking a position where we have endorsed free travel or somehow sanctioned what the Castro government is doing. It is a commission. It is a commission to analyze U.S. policy. That is all it is. It is pathetic to hear the opposition discussing the issue. Have we reached a point where we can't even discuss United States policy with regard to Cuba? If we had followed that policy, Nixon never would have gone to China. We never would have established a roadmap of Vietnam. President Bush and President Carter wouldn't have been able to do anything in the Middle East. Ronald Reagan wouldn't have met with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. There is a long list. You can't even sit down and talk about this issue. I find it stunning, at the beginning of the 21st century, that we are so obsessed with this one individual that we are willing to squander building a relationship in a post-Castro period with 11 million people of Cuba. That is stunning to me. We have listened to Members of Congress. I argue the leading dissident in Cuba, who has done time in jail, has suffered, his family suffers; all of the things my colleague has talked about, this individual has suffered. Don't listen to me; listen to him. Listen to his words, inside Cuba, not living in the luxury of democracy and freedom here but living inside Cuba. I read the letter, as follows: Dear Friend, I am writing to you and to other U.S. lawmakers to assure you that the great majority of dissident groups and leaders in Cuba do not support the unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the government of the United States against the Cuban government. This position is clearly reflected in the last paragraph of the ``We Are All United'' (``Todos Unidos'') proclamation approved last November 12th in Havana and signed by more than fifty dissident groups. My friends and I recognize the moral and political support of many U.S. lawmakers for efforts to change Washington's policy towards Cuba that will end the current situation that harms the basis for free trade and coexistence between sovereign nations. It is unfortunate that the government of Cuba still clings to an outdated and inefficient model that I believe is the fundamental cause for the great difficulties that the Cuban people suffer, but it is obvious that the current Cold War climate between our governments and the unilateral sanctions will continue to fuel the fire of totalitarianism in my country. Moving forward towards fully normalized relations requires mutual respect between our two nations. Such as path will inevitably lead us to develop mutually beneficial relations that will assist the Cuban people in reconstructing our country while we preserve our independence, sovereignty and identity. On behalf of the best interests of our people I invite you to support new proposals to end a conflict that has lasted more than forty years. Sincerely, Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, Presidente, Comision Cubana de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliacion Nacional. Mr. President, again let me read a letter, if I may, signed by our colleagues a year and a half ago. We the undersigned, recommend that you authorize the establishment of a National Bipartisan Commission to review our current U.S.-Cuba policy. This commission would follow the precedent and work program of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America (the ``Kissinger Commission''), established by President Reagan in 1983, which made such a positive contribution to our foreign policy in that troubled region 15 years ago. The letter goes on about all the reasons such a commission would make sense and how it should be formed. More and more Americans from all sectors of our nation are becoming concerned about the far-reaching effects of our present U.S.-Cuba policy on United States interests and the Cuban people. Your establishment of this National Bipartisan Commission would demonstrate leadership and responsiveness to the American people. Signed in this and a subsequent letter by the following Members: John Warner, Rod Grams, Chuck Hagel, Jim Jeffords, Mike Enzi, John Chafee, Gordon Smith, Craig Thomas, Robert Kerrey, Dale Bumpers, Rick Santorum, myself, Dirk Kempthorne, Pat Roberts, Kit Bond, Richard Lugar, Pat Leahy, Pat Moynihan, Arlen Specter, Jack Reed, Thad Cochran, Patty Murray, Pete Domenici, and Barbara Boxer. That is about as bipartisan as it gets. That is a year and a half ago, with a significant number of our colleagues saying a commission makes some sense, to try to formulate a policy that would allow us at least to begin to analyze how our policy might improve in the coming years. Those letters have already been printed in the Record earlier today. Mr. President, last: Dear Senator Warner, as Americans who have been engaged in the conduct of foreign relations in various positions over the past three decades, we believe that it is timely to conduct a review of the United States policy towards Cuba. We therefore encourage you and your colleagues to support the establishment of a National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba. Signed by Howard Baker, former majority leader, U.S. Senate; Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under Republican administrations; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State; William Rogers, former Under Secretary of State in a Republican administration; Harry Shalaudeman, former Assistant Secretary of State under Republican administrations; and Malcolm Wallop, former conservative Republican Member of this body; Larry Eagleburger, former Secretary of State under President Bush. Calling people Neville Chamberlain, citing all the horrors that go on that we know about in repressive governments--does anybody think these people, our colleagues here who signed these letters, former administration officials, myself, or others--somehow this is un- American for us to at least sit down in a cooler environment, to analyze how we might establish a better relationship with the nation of Cuba? I really find it incredible. It is worrisome to me. It is worrisome to me that our own self-interest, the U.S. interest, could be so dominated by a relatively small group of people in this country who are able to provoke this kind of opposition to the simple idea of a commission that has been endorsed by leading Republican foreign policy experts as well as Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber across the board, representing the entire ideological spectrum. What are we afraid of about a commission to look at these issues? That automatically it means we are going to be bound and shackled? What better timing than to have one right now, so we can absolutely provide some guidance? That is all it is. The new administration coming in sometime next spring, do they believe commission recommendations would bind them to some action? Have previous commissions bound other administrations? Cite one for me. Cite one, where a commission has bound this Congress to take action. There is not a single example of it. But this issue has become so inflamed here, you cannot even talk about a commission. This amendment does not say lift the embargo on food and medicine. I support that. But that is not what this says. This amendment does not say you ought to travel freely to Cuba or any other country around the globe for that matter, although I support it. I don't like my Government telling me where I can't go. Let the Cuban Government tell me I can't come in, but don't have my Government tell me where I can't travel. In fact, it is about the only place in the world where our Government says that. We travel to all the other nations around the globe that harbor terrorists who are on the lists. The answer here is no. No, this amendment merely says we ought to step back and take a cooler look at what our policy ought to be in the 21st century before we go much further and end up with a train wreck in Cuba, where we find people pouring to our shores, civil conflict persisting, and innocent and decent people in that country losing their lives. Let me conclude on this point. I said earlier I have great respect for the exile community. I have great respect for what they have been through and what their families have been through. I have great respect for the people inside Cuba. I have been there. I have spent time with them. I have talked to people. We owe it to them, we owe it to decent, good people who are not caught up in the foreign policies--I don't know how many of my colleagues saw the photograph yesterday of a mother and daughter embracing in Cuba. They would not give out their names because they went there illegally, because our Government prohibited that daughter from going to visit her mother 90 miles off our shore. A mother and daughter can travel to China, to Vietnam, Iran, Libya, almost anywhere else in the world, and we do not have a law prohibiting it. But that daughter could not visit her mother in Cuba unless she went illegally. I think we ought to review that policy. I don't think that makes me a radical or a revolutionary. When we prohibit families from even spending time with each other, 90 miles off our shore, something is wrong. Something is wrong. The estimates are that thousands of Americans every year violate the laws of the United States by traveling to Cuba to see their family members. We ought not make their actions illegal. This amendment does not even address that issue. It just says let's look at the entire policy. That is all it does. I suspect this amendment is going to lose. It is going to be tabled. I am saddened by that. I think it is a step backwards. As I said earlier, had we followed a similar policy with China and Vietnam and Korea, we would not have the kind of improvements we have seen today all across the globe. But because courageous and bold people did not let the past so cripple them they could not begin to deal with the future, there are prospects for peace on Northern Ireland and the Middle East today. There are even prospects for peace in the peninsula of Korea, even moving to improve substantially conditions in Vietnam and China. That is all because there were courageous, bold leaders. There were the Richard Nixons who did not listen to the voices here who said: You cannot go to China. It is an outrageous government. It does not deserve the presence of an American President. It was a pretty compelling argument. But that President said: No, I think we ought to try something new. At least try--try. Because he tried, there is hope today for a billion more people--more than a billion people in the PRC. Because we had some courageous people who said let's at least try to break new ground in Vietnam, we have a roadmap. I cannot even sit down to determine whether or not we can have a roadmap if this amendment is defeated, when it comes to Cuba. George Miller, Albert Reynolds, Tony Blair--Prime Minister, Gerry Adams, David Trimble--these people are told by their constituents: Don't you dare sit down with those Catholics. Don't you dare sit down with those Protestants. Don't you dare go to Belfast. They said: I am going to go anyway, and I am going to try. I am going to try to make a difference because I am not going to live in the past. I am not going to live back then and just recite the litany of every wrong. I am going to try to make a better future for my children. And they went. Today the facts are things are improving and there is a chance for peace. There is a chance. With North Korea, it is the same thing; the Middle East, it is the same thing. It has failed. It has failed again, but people keep trying. All I am saying is let's try. Let's just try. Let's sit back ourselves and see if we can try and do something different. Don't the 11 million people on that island country who care about that issue deserve that much? Isn't it in the national interest? It is telling that there are people here who are so fixated and obsessed with Fidel Castro that they even want to deny a father and son being together. They are so fixated they would say a father and son should not be allowed to be together. There are those of us who made the point there are good parents in bad countries, just as there are bad parents in good countries and fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons ought to be together. I never thought asking for a bipartisan commission would demand courage saying to people who may be supporters and backers: I disagree with you on this one because we are going to try. I regret it is on this bill. I do not have any other choice. If I do not offer it here, I cannot offer it. It is not like there are other vehicles available to me. My colleagues know the other bills are appropriations bills, and I am prohibited from offering this on an appropriations bill without getting a supermajority vote. I do not like doing it. Don't tell me not to do it here when this bill is cluttered, by the way, with nonrelevant amendments. I would not be offering it on this bill if I had some other choice. I do not. I regret that. I do not normally offer nonrelevant amendments on bills, but when I was left with no other choice, I felt I had to do it on this bill, and I thought this was the right time, a transitional period. This is not about Clinton appointments, when the President appointed Howard Baker and John Danforth. He did not appoint partisan people. That will be the case here, in my view. It deserves an effort. I urge my colleagues to support this. There will be a tabling motion. I am hopeful we will win. I am not all that confident because of what I have been told privately by many colleagues: They agree with this, they think I am right, but, once again, they just cannot support it at this time. When is the right time? When is the right hour when we can at least make a difference and do something a bit courageous to at least sit back and see if we cannot come up with some better ideas. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will in a moment yield to my colleague from North Dakota to share some thoughts. Let me briefly respond to some of the statements that have been made here. First of all, if we follow the same sort of logic that has been just suggested here, President Nixon never should have gone to China when there was hardly any freedom, when even free market principles were not thought of at the time. I suppose President Carter should not even have thought about the Camp David accords, given the reputation of the PLO. This body, under the leadership of John McCain and John Kerry, should not even have thought about normalizing relations with Vietnam, if we had followed the logic just suggested. When it comes to how we establish relations and reach out, I suspect we wouldn't have had General MacArthur in Japan, and we would not be working with people in Germany. The list goes on. Certainly to go back and recite the horrors of war and those who violated the Geneva accords when it comes to the treatment of POWs--I will not take a back seat to anybody in my abhorrence of what goes on. What we are talking about is a commission to take a look at Cuban- U.S. policy. My colleagues who oppose this may want to say this is somehow lifting the embargo. I do think we ought to change policies. I think we ought to move in that direction. But I know full well I am not in a majority in that view in this Chamber. There are plenty of others who do not think we ought to do that but who support the idea of a commission to take a look at policy and how we might improve things. We did this in other places. We did it under the Reagan administration in Central America; it was the Kissinger commission. We certainly had a Foreign Relations Committee there. In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee was at that time controlled by the majority party today. Yet a commission was established to take a look at how we might resolve and extricate ourselves from the conflict in Central America. Today, under the leadership of Senator Helms and the majority of the Foreign Relations Committee, we have a Commission on Terrorism. That is not because we don't have a Foreign Relations Committee or an Intelligence Committee. The thought was that we ought to step back a little bit and take a look at the issue of terrorism and recommend some policy ideas, how we might do a better job. I hope I do not have to go down the long list of commissions that have been established because people thought that made sense as a vehicle to determine new ideas. I do not like this amendment on this bill either, frankly. I wish it were not on DOD. But I would not pick this one out. We have adopted some 45 amendments that have nothing to do with the DOD bill. They have been agreed to by the majority. If you are going to establish a rule that nothing is included unless it is relevant, you better go back and undo 50 percent of the bill. I make the case this is more relevant than a lot of stuff on this bill because we are dealing with a national security issue that could become a serious problem. If you end up with great civil conflict in Cuba in a post-Castro period, where do you think the people are going to go? They are not going to travel to Colombia. They are not going to Mexico. They are not going to Europe. They are coming 90 miles to this country. Then we may look back and say: A commission and some ideas that might have abated that potential problem from occurring might have made some sense. That is all the suggestion is here, to try to come up with some ideas that might ease potential problems that many people believe are coming down the line. I don't want to keep reiterating the point. I do not believe the people I listed before, as ones supporting this commission, would necessarily believe this is somehow agreeing with Castro's policies in Cuba. When you go down the list of people such as George Shultz and Frank Carlucci and Malcolm Wallop--maybe people know something I don't know, but those people support a commission. Do you think Howard Baker is a supporter of terrorism? George Shultz thinks that Cubans were involved in dreadful acts against POWs but somehow does not care about that issue? I do not think so. Henry Kissinger and Frank Carlucci have somehow gone soft on the issues? I don't think so. They feel as strongly about it today as they have over the years. This does not tie our hands, a commission. This issue is not divided along partisan lines. Does this President show partisanship when he asks John Danforth and Howard Baker to look at such issues as Los Alamos or the FBI conduct at Waco? Those are the people he appointed to a commission. I am talking about serious people who know something about making a recommendation to Congress. That is all it is. Some are trying to create a monster out of a commission, suggesting somehow this is contrary to our interest. It is in our interest to do it. I am saddened, in a way, that my colleagues who disagree with me specifically on the issues might find some merit in the idea of doing this. This ought not be a place where it is seen as somehow anti one particular group or another. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the commission would not be a bona fide commission, in my view, if it did not include people who disagree or who agree with the present policies. Certainly, the Cuban American community, the exile community, for whom I have the highest respect--what has happened to them and their families is dreadful and deplorable. My view is our policy ought not to be determined in the United States by any small particular group. It is what is in the U.S. interest, not the interest of some group in our country. It should be in everyone's interest. The commission, in my view, will help us provide road signs and guidance on how we ought to proceed. Lastly, with regard to the drug issue--and I pointed out a week ago-- drug czar Barry McCaffrey has absolved the Cuban Government of allegations that it is involved in the drug trade and has called for greater cooperation with Cuba on drug policy. I do not think Gen. Barry McCaffrey is somehow weak when it comes to communism or drug issues. He has been as tough a drug czar as this country has had. Those are his views. In fact, he encouraged the idea that there be greater cooperation. We can never get that if one listens to the debate. It might make a difference. Despite assertions by Castro's opponents in the United States that the Cuban Government and Castro personally are involved in the drug trade, the UN International Drug Control Program, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and Gen. Barry McCaffrey's office reject the claim. ``There is no evidence of Cuban government `complicity with drug crime.' '' That is a quotation from Gen. Barry McCaffrey. The allegations about that are ludicrous. If one wants to be against the commission, be against the commission but do not raise issues that have nothing to do with the establishment of a commission which may help sort this out and avoid the very partisan bickering this issue has provoked over the years. I have spoken longer than intended. My colleague is here, and I yield 5 minutes to him.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a 12-member bipartisan commission to review Cuba policy and make recommendations with respect to how that policy might be altered to best serve the interests of the United States. Mr. President, I will not read the documents, but I will leave them for my colleagues' consideration: A letter signed by Howard Baker, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, Malcolm Wallop, along with 26 colleagues, 16 from the floor, a letter from George Shultz, and one from the leading dissident groups inside Cuba calling for the commission to try to take a look at U.S.-Cuban policy. It is time to stop, in my view, the absurd fixation we have on one individual and to remove an important foreign policy issue from the small but powerful group that doesn't allow us to think what is in our best interest as a nation. We ought to listen to foreign policy experts. This commission is not predetermined; it is not shackled. It may very well come back and recommend a continuation of the embargo. But it seems to me we ought to at least listen. We are watching the Koreans come together. We are watching advances in the Middle East. Today, we are watching efforts around the world to bring people together to resolve historic differences. Today, Pete Peterson, former POW, represents U.S. interests as our Ambassador in Vietnam. Does that mean we agree with the policies of the Vietnamese Government? No. We recognize, by trying to tear down the walls that have historically divided us, we can try to build a better relationship between the two countries. We will soon be voting on whether or not to have a trading relationship with China. We are watching improvements in the Middle East. Northern Ireland brings hope for resolving differences. All I am asking with this amendment--it has been recommended by Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of State, 26 of our colleagues, in a bipartisan letter to the President only a few months ago--is to establish a commission to examine U.S.-Cuban policies to see if we can't come up with some better answers than the historic debate which has divided us on this issue. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was back in Connecticut yesterday and was unable to participate in the debate on the Kennedy-Smith amendment pertaining to hate crimes prevention. I want to take this opportunity to share my views on this most crucial issue. The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently released its latest statistics documenting hate crimes in our country. This report establishes that over 7,500 hate crimes occurred during 1998. The FBI found that 4,321 crimes were motivated by racial bias, 1,390 because of religion, 1,260 because of sexual orientation, and 754 by ethnicity or national origin. But hate crime statistics do not tell the whole story. Behind each and every one of these numbers is a person, a family and a community targeted and forever changed by these willful acts of violence. We as a nation know of some of these hate crimes. We know of the brutal dragging death in 1998 of James Byrd Jr., in Jasper, Texas. We know about the senseless beating of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. And we cannot forget the vicious acts of an armed assailant who fatally shot five people in a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles earlier this year. Joseph Healy, a 71-year-old Roman Catholic priest who was in Pittsburgh counseling victims of crime was gunned down in March at a fast food restaurant. Father Healy was a native of Bridgeport, Connecticut. He was killed in a racially motivated shooting. Father Healy and four other white men were shot; three of the five men died. Court documents revealed that the gunman shot the victims with ``malicious intent towards white males.'' Then there's the case of Heather Washington, a young, well respected African-American kindergarten teacher from Hartford, who along with her boyfriend was chased at high speeds on a Connecticut highway last month. The couple was pursued by a white male who yelled epithets such as ``white power,'' shot at the vehicle's tires, and rear-ended the couple's car with his own vehicle. The couple was able to escape the assailant. However, they were not able to escape the constant fear that a similar incident could happen at any time. These are examples of the bias crimes that are committed every day in America. Every day people across the nation continue to be victims of crimes motivated by bigotry. We owe it to these victims to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice. We should not wait until these brutal and shocking crimes make national headlines. Congress has the ability, the opportunity, and the duty to do something about this epidemic now. This problem cannot and should not be ignored. In response to these disturbing acts, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 622, the Federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, introduced by my longtime friend and colleague Senator Kennedy. I believe that all people, regardless of background or belief, deserve to be protected from discrimination. We must unite now to send an unequivocal message that hate will not be tolerated in our communities. Hate crimes deserve separate and strong penalties because they injure all of us. The perpetrator of a hate crime may wield a bat against a single person, but that perpetrator strikes at the morals that hold our society together. Hate destroys what's good, what's great about America. It is just and fitting for Congress to impose sanctions against criminals who are motivated by blind bigotry. These incidences tear the very fabric of our society and they cannot be tolerated. I admit that laws have little power to change the hearts and minds of people, but Congress can ensure that those who harbor hateful thoughts are punished when they act on those thoughts. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Kennedy-Smith amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the men of the National Guard's 169th Infantry Regiment of the 43rd Division, or Company K, as they were called, who answered the call to serve their country 50 years ago in securing peace and democracy in Germany during the Korean War. The men of Company K were an elite group of civilian soldiers hailing from Middlesex County in my home state of Connecticut. When Communist-led North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, President Truman decided to strengthen United States forces by calling up the National Guard. Worried that the Korean attack was only a diversion for a planned Soviet attack on Berlin, the Truman administration deployed troops in Germany to thwart any plans for aggression. In order to make this possible, Truman relied heavily on support from the National Guard. Company K, headquartered in Middletown, Connecticut, became part of this defense effort and reported for roll call on September 5, 1950, officially becoming part of the United States Army. While training at the A.P. Hill Military Reservation in Virginia, Company K received word from Major General Kenneth F. Cramer that they were to report for duty in Germany. It was July 10, 1951, 12:10 p.m. The Major General recalled the history of the 43rd, noting that never before had it been assigned such a task. It was to be the first time in history that a National Guard division went to Europe in peace time. Major General Cramer said to his troops: We are now participating in a determined effort by western civilization to maintain its freedoms and to preserve the peace through the cooperative effort under the Atlantic Pact. . . . As we move into Europe, the eyes of that continent will be upon us. All these people will judge the America of today by us. By our conduct, by our appearance, by our soldierly qualities, we must make certain that their judgments are most favorable to our own country, whose ambassadors we shall be. And great representatives of America they were. On January 4, 1952, the Hartford Courant wrote that the 43rd Division had become an elite force of respectable and dutiful soldiers. They further praised them for their consideration towards the people of Germany, among whom they lived and interacted on a daily basis. Company K stayed in Germany for more than two and a half years. Through their efforts there in building defense systems, organizing the border defenses, and strengthening the NATO forces, they successfully helped to prevent any Soviet attacks. The soldiers of the Company put the preservation of freedom and democratic society ahead of themselves. They proved that their loyalty to our society's ideals and their desire for peace was their first priority. As such, our nation could not have asked for finer ambassadors in Europe. On June 25, 2000, the members of Company K will be celebrating their 50th Anniversary Reunion gathering. I am grateful to them for their actions 50 years ago and on behalf of the people of Connecticut, and the nation as a whole, I wish to extend a heartfelt thank you to the men of Company K. I hope that their reunion is a success and I wish them well in the future.