Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. Just as a point of reference, I spent a week in Cuba in December, in fact, all over the area, all over Havana, and Varadero as well for a day. I point out to my colleague that I saw Americans all over the streets of Havana. The idea you are confined to Varadero Beach is just not the case. There are people literally everywhere, right in the marketplaces, in the streets, in the restaurants, places they could go. The idea that you are restricted only to go to Varadero Beach is not the case.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DODD. To Cuban Americans who want to travel to Cuba--many do-- this is, in a sense, saying you can only go back to the country of your birth once during a year, unless you have a sick relative, and then you have to apply to some bureaucrat in the Treasury Department to go down and see your family. That is wrong. But the idea that Cuban Americans would be restricted to Varadero Beach is just not the case. You can talk with Cuban Americans who have been back to Cuba. They are not restrained on where they can travel in Cuba.

Mr. DODD. That is fine.

Mr. DODD. I would also like to be heard on 907.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, my colleague from Massachusetts makes an excellent point. When you restrict the ability of average citizens to travel, you then restrict the ability of information exchanges about what is going on around the world to actually reach the average citizen in the streets. It can make a difference. So in a sense you empower Mr. Castro and those who support him by giving them the ability to restrain the amount of information people in the streets ought to be able to get about what is going on in the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, we become a coconspirator, if you will, in sustaining this man in power, in my view. But by opening up this process, given the examples we can cite--there are concrete examples all over the world where, when we allowed that travel and that contact to occur, we have made a difference; we created change. The only place there has been no change that I know of is in Cuba, and it is the only place where we have not changed our policy. There seems to be some logic in that argument. If you want to follow other examples, and those who argue against this resolution who simultaneously argue they want Castro to go, it seems to me our best formulation is to give this a chance to see if we cannot create the kind of change the Senator from Massachusetts and I strongly support. I thank him for his questions. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I say in response to my colleague from Massachusetts, he makes an excellent point. I think the observation he has drawn is correct. No one can grant with any certainty whether or not we will create change overnight. I look down the list of the people who can get licenses to go to Cuba. Members of Congress can; journalists can; people who are involved in some cultural exchanges. Ballerinas can go through a licensing process to get there. I like the idea that an average citizen in my State, in Massachusetts, in Florida, can go into Cuba and walk those streets, talk to people in the marketplaces, and share with them what we stand for as a nation. Every time we have allowed that to occur, we have created change--maybe not in the People's Republic of China. We did in Poland. We did in Czechoslovakia. We did in Hungary. We did throughout the Soviet bloc when we had a constant flow of people; that opening up, that engagement, that creates change. It seems to me after 38 years of saying no one can go there, this might be worth trying. Then Fidel Castro can say: I'm not going to allow these people in. Let him be the one who shuts the door to U.S. citizens traveling there. Let us not deny our own citizens the right to try and make a difference, if that is what they want to do, without going through some bureaucratic licensing process. Even the wife of a distinguished colleague had to go through this process, as a registered nurse, to qualify under the regulations. The spouse of a Senator. She can go to North Korea, China, abusive governments, but she cannot go 90 miles off the shore with her husband, a Senator. If that woman were not the wife of a Senator, she would have been denied that license. We all know that. I bet there are nurses all across this country who might go to Cuba and make a difference through their engagement in conversation, interfacing with the people of that country, and to begin to create the kind of change we seek. It is absurd. As my colleague from Massachusetts has suggested by his question, it is absurd. We are 185 days away from the millennium and we sit in this Chamber and tell American citizens that because we disagree, strongly disagree, with the Government of Cuba, we are going to deny them the right to travel there and put it in the same basket as Iraq and Libya. That doesn't make sense. I yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, if I may, I will not take much time, because my colleague from Florida wants to be heard, as well as others. Let me say to my friend and colleague from New Jersey, I admire his rhetorical skills immensely. He made a valiant effort to shift the argument and debate implying we are doing a favor, this is somehow a great act of generosity and kindness, that those who are proposing lifting a restraint on travel to Cuba are trying to help out Fidel Castro. It is a good, clever argument. I hope it is not a persuasive argument. We are talking here not about what we are trying to do to help Fidel Castro but a right that American citizens ought to have to travel freely. My colleague from New Jersey and others have pointed out the dastardly deeds that go on in Cuba. I don't disagree at all. I am outraged by it and condemn it. I point out, if that is the basis upon which we restrict Americans to travel freely, we would have bans on travel all over the world. It goes on every day. We don't say to a single American citizen: You can't travel to the People's Republic of China. Every day, that government abuses its own people far more egregiously than occurs in Cuba. We see it in Vietnam, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iran, North Korea. Is there any more oppressive government on the face of this Earth than the Republic of North Korea? Yet any citizen in this country tomorrow or tonight can get on a plane and fly there without having to get permission from the State Department or the Treasury. My point is, we are applying a standard that is not being applied equally or fairly. I subscribe to the notion that by opening up access you begin to create change. I argue that in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia it was the access and the interchange between citizens of the free world and those countries which helped create the kind of change that caused communism in those nations to fall. It wasn't isolation that did it; it was contact that did it. I have watched for 40 years a policy in Cuba that has not produced the change that the Senator from North Carolina and I both want. We disagree how to get there, but I agree with the conclusion he seeks. I believe he agrees with the conclusion I seek. Why don't we try a different tactic? What is the point of further isolation after 40 years if there is no change? If I can say to a citizen of my State: You can fly to the North Korea, you can fly to the People's Republic of China, you can fly to Iran--countries that have done far worse than the incidents that have occurred in Cuba, far more egregious--we have understood we don't deny citizens of our own country the right to travel. Let Fidel Castro shut the door and say to my constituents: You can't come to my country. I don't want to sit in the Senate and do his bidding. I don't think I ought to be saying to the citizens of New Jersey, North Carolina, or Florida that you can't travel there. Let them say that. To tell Cuban Americans: You can go back to your country once a year, and if someone is sick, apply for an application, a license, and maybe we will let you go see your family, maybe we will let you go, that is not my view of the way we ought to be conducting our foreign policy. This is about American rights. We provide in the Leahy amendment that unless we are involved in a state of war, hostilities, or public health reasons or good reasons why the Government may restrain the travel of its citizens--we are not in that condition here. If you want to create change in Cuba, let good, honest, average American citizens interface with these people. They are the best ambassadors in the world. They do more good on an hourly basis on behalf of our country than all the diplomats combined. Give them a chance to make that difference and go to the country 90 miles off our shore. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts 1 minute for a question.

Mr. DODD. On the Dodd amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. So in a sense we are promoting, by this particular provision in our existing law, illegal travel.

Mr. DODD. I think it is an important point you are making. But I think in almost every single case, what these citizens are doing is flying through Canada or Cancun and in a sense violating the law; they are acting illegally.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for his second-degree proposal. We will take a very short amount of time. It is not our intention to spend a great deal of time on this particular proposal. We have proposed the pending amendments because we believe the time has come to lift the very archaic, counterproductive, and ill- conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. Not only does this ban hinder rather than help our effort to spread democracy, it unnecessarily abridges the rights of ordinary Americans. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain. Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be an entire ocean. We have made a land ripe for American influence forbidden territory. In doing so, we have enabled Fidel Castro's regime to hold onto power longer and contributed to the continued oppression of the Cuban people. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit that island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Yugoslavia, North Korea--but not to Cuba. You can fly to North Korea; you can fly to Iran; you can travel freely. Yet it seems to me if you can go to those countries, you ought not be denied the right to go to Cuba. If the Cubans want to stop Americans from visiting that country, that ought to be their business. But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but not to travel 90 miles off our shore to Cuba I think is a mistake. To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be ``the Great Satan.'' We hear it all the time. Just two decades ago, Iran occupied our Embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of the members of their Government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public. Similarly, we do not ban travel to Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles last summer for its support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism. I can go to Iran, but I cannot go to Cuba. There is an inconsistency here that I think we ought to undo. We ban travel to Cuba, a nation which is neither at war with the United States nor a sponsor of terrorism. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about the change we all seek serves our own interests. Before I go on, let me be perfectly clear: I strongly support effective measures to bring democratic values and rule to all people, including Cuba. No one, certainly not Cubans, should have to live under a dictator's fist. Cubans cannot travel freely to the United States. That is because Fidel Castro does not allow them to do so. Those of us who watched our television screens last night and saw those Cubans trying to escape the dictatorial regime in Cuba, picked up by Cuban boats were horrified by that kind of activity. Because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have a Bill of Rights. We have fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people. If I can travel to North Korea, if I can travel to the Sudan, if I can travel to Iran, I do not understand the justification for saying I cannot travel to Cuba. I happen to believe that by allowing Americans to travel there, we can begin to have the influence in Cuba that can begin to change the demographics politically to make a difference in bringing about the change we all seek in that country. Today, every single country in the Western Hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence through person-to-person and cultural exchanges was a prime factor in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian or military regimes to one where democracy is the rule, with one exception: Cuba. Our policy toward Cuba blocks these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarian regimes, and that is our own people. They are the best ambassadors we have. Most totalitarian regimes bar Americans from coming into their countries for the very reasons I just mentioned. They are afraid the gospel of freedom will motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so. The current state of regulations governing who can and cannot travel to Cuba is a complex and subjective morass. My colleague, Senator Leahy, has first-hand experience in attempting to navigate the sea of bureaucracy. When he attempted to travel to Cuba earlier this year with his wife Marcelle, he discovered that while his travel was exempt from certain licensing requirements, his wife's travel was not. Ultimately, she was able to accompany her husband after applying for a license based on her work as a registered nurse. The fact is, the entire process is a farce and everyone knows it. Other couples, not a U.S. Senator and his wife, would probably not fare as well in gaining a license to travel to Cuba. Let me review for my colleagues who may travel to Cuba under current Government regulations and under what circumstances. The following categories of people may travel to Cuba without applying to the Treasury Department for a specific license to travel. They are deemed to be authorized to travel under so-called general license: Government officials, regularly employed journalists, professional researchers who are ``full time professionals who travel to Cuba to conduct professional research in their professional areas,'' Cuban Americans who have relatives in Cuba who are ill but only once a year they can go back. There are other categories of individuals who theoretically are eligible to travel to Cuba as well, but they must apply for a license from the Department of the Treasury and prove they fit a category in which travel to Cuba is permissible. What are these categories? One, freelance journalists, provided they can prove they are journalists; they must also submit their itinerary for the proposed research. Two, Cuban Americans who are unfortunate enough to have more than one humanitarian emergency in a 12-month period and therefore cannot travel under a general license. Three, students and faculty from U.S. academic institutions that are accredited by an appropriate national or regional educational accrediting association who are participating in a ``structural education program.'' Four, members of U.S. religious organizations. Five, individuals participating in public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions. Just because you think you may fall into one of the above enumerated categories does not necessarily mean you will actually be licensed by the U.S. Government to travel to Cuba. Who decides whether a researcher's work is legitimate? Who decides whether a freelance journalist is really conducting journalistic activities? Who decides whether or not a professor or student is participating in a ``structured educational program''? Who decides whether a religious person is really going to conduct religious activities? I will tell you who does. Some Government bureaucrats are making those decisions about those personal rights of American citizens. It is truly unsettling, to put it mildly, when you think about it, and probably unconstitutional at its core. It is a real intrusion on the fundamental rights of American citizens. It also says something about what we as a Government think about our own people. Do we really believe that a journalist, a Government official, a Senator, a Congressman, a baseball player, a ballerina, a college professor or minister are somehow superior to other citizens who do not fall into those categories; that only these categories of people are ``good examples'' for the Cuban people to observe in order to understand American values? I do not think so. I find such a notion insulting. There is no better way to communicate America's values and ideals than by unleashing average American men and women to demonstrate by daily living what our great country stands for and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today. I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think an excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived 38 years despite the Draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view. This spring, we got a taste of what people-to-people exchanges between the United States and Cuba might mean when the Baltimore Orioles and the Cuban National Team played a home-and-home series. The game brought players from two nations with the greatest love of baseball together for the first time in generations. It is time to bring the fans together. It is time to let Americans and Cubans meet in the baseball stands and on the streets of Havana. Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens. Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans-- average Americans--to travel freely to Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, I make this point to my colleagues: There are no restrictions on you if you want to travel to the Communist Government of North Korea, to the Communist Government of the People's Republic of China, to the Communist Government of Vietnam, to the terrorist-supported Government of Iran, or to travel to the Sudan. This is a completely uneven standard we are applying in order to satisfy some political rhetoric. If you really want to create some change in Cuba, then unleash the flood of U.S. citizens going down there and talking to average Cubans on the streets of Havana and Santiago and the small communities. Give the 11 million people in Cuba a chance to interface and interact with American citizens. If Fidel Castro wants to say, ``No, you can't come here,'' let him say that, but let not us do his bidding by saying to average citizens: You cannot go there. That is a denial, in my view, of a fundamental right and freedom, unless there is an overriding national interest which would preclude and prohibit American citizens from traveling to a given country. That case has not been made. It cannot be made when it comes to Cuba. Senator Leahy and I urge the adoption of this amendment to begin to create the change we all want to see on this island nation 90 miles off our shore. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. DODD. One amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think there has been more heat than light evidenced by those who have attempted to characterize what the amendment offered by Senator Brownback seeks to achieve with the proposed amendment or with legislation that he introduced earlier this year--the so called Silk Road Strategy Act. I call attention to the language of the amendment and what it seeks to achieve support, the bill has even more expansive language in these areas. Let me highlight for my colleagues just a few of these goals: to promote and strengthen independence, sovereignty, democratic government and respect for human rights; to promote tolerance, pluralism, and understanding and counter racism and anti-Semitism; to assist actively in the resolution of regional conflicts and to facilitate the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce; and to help promote market oriented principles and practices. The assistance authorized by this legislation is intended to promote reconciliation, economic development, and broad regional cooperation. Mr. President, I think we would all agree that these are appropriate goals and programs that are worthy of U.S. support. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what the bill and the proposed amendment will do. It does not supersede the Freedom Support Act nor does it repeal section 907 of the Freedom Support Act which restricts assistance to Azerbaijan. Rather it gives the President the ability to waive continued application of the restrictions if he determines they do not serve United States national interests. I opposed last year's version of the Silk Road legislation because I believed it went further than was wise or necessary in superseding the Freedom Support Act and in the outright repeal of restrictions on assistance to Azerbaijan. Having said that, I have made no secret of the fact that I am increasingly opposed to Congressionally mandated foreign policy restrictions that do not include Presidential waiver authority. I think that it makes the conduct of foreign policy extremely difficult and is not the most effective way to promote the goals that Congress is seeking in the legislation it enacts. Senator Brownback has struck the right balance in the legislation that is before us today. It recognizes the challenges we face in promoting democracy and respect for human rights in the region and it gives the President sufficient tools to make progress in these areas. I believe it also gives an incentive for governments in the region to make progress in these important areas, knowing that if they do, they will improve relations with the U.S. and open the door to economic assistance which they need if they are to make progress to building democratic institutions in their countries. For that reason I support the underlying Brownback amendment and do not believe that the perfecting amendment offered by Senator McConnell is necessary.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Monday June 28, 1999, I was not present during Senate action on rollcall vote No. 184, a motion to invoke cloture on S. 1233, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, because my flight was delayed by inclement weather. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding to me. Far more important, I thank him for his leadership on this issue. We have worked on this issue together, along with several of our colleagues for the last 5 or 6 years. It all began because the Senator from New Mexico discovered this program and brought it to the attention of the Senate and asked a group of his colleagues if we wanted to get involved in this idea of Character Counts. I will not go through the long history of it, but one can imagine how provocative a meeting it was in Aspen, CO, when educators, child psychologists, and Lord knows who else, gathered together--quite a group of people--to try to come to some conclusion about six pillars of character. Apparently the debate went on for some time on which pillars they could agree on. They finally settled on respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, caring, loyalty, honesty, and fairness. This is not an all-inclusive list. There may be other ideas. There may be synonyms for each of these words that others find more acceptable to their particular community. The point is not to be rigid about the words or rigid about how to best promote these values among our young people. What is important is that there be community efforts, efforts at the neighborhood level to promote the idea of strong values in our young people, not only young people but young adults and adults as well. One of the beauties of this program is it does not focus just on the children in the schoolroom. But when the issue of trustworthiness is raised as an issue that the school is going to focus on for a particular period of time--a day, a week, a month--everybody in the school is involved with the issue of trustworthiness. The administrators, the teachers, the coaches, the faculty advisers, as well as the students, share in coming to a better understanding of how that particular value can be enhanced and understood and promulgated within the community. This has been a tremendously successful program. In my State of Connecticut, there are now some 10,000 young people who have gone through a Character Counts Program. I do not know the exact numbers in my colleague's State of New Mexico, but it is easily that or more. We are small States. We are not large States. But it is a good indication of how successful this program has been. It has expanded primarily as a result of word of mouth, good reputation, one teacher telling another teacher in another community how it works, one principal telling another principal how well it works. That is why it has expanded as much as it has in my State of Connecticut. Education, as we all know, is a central activity in any child's life. We teach them to walk, to talk, to read, and to write. But one of the most important things that a child can learn is how to get along with others and to be a part of the larger community, to be a responsible, caring, loyal, honest, fair, respectful citizen. You can add other words, as I said. Regrettably, today, for a lot of reasons which we do not need to go into this afternoon, young people are entering a school system not having learned these basic values. It has nothing to do with economics. It has nothing to do with race or religion. I can show you communities in my State that are some of the most affluent in the country where children are entering a school system without these values. I can also take you to some of the poorest neighborhoods in my State and show you where children are entering school with these values. I could also show you children out of those communities who do not have those values. So it was decided a number of years ago we ought to try to weave into the educational process the teaching of these values, and to do so in a way that would not confront, if you will, the agenda that a teacher, a school system, has on a daily basis, but to weave it into the seamless garment of a student's daily life. So instead of having, say, 15 minutes at the outset of the school day in which the principal comes on the loudspeaker and says: We are now going to talk about trustworthiness for 15 minutes--and if any of us here recall those kinds of discussions growing up as children, we all know what happened: We yawned; we fell asleep; no one paid much attention; we hardly remember what the principal had to say--what Character Counts says is, we are not going to do it that way; we are going to take the word ``trustworthiness,'' or ``loyalty,'' or ``respect,'' or ``citizenship,'' and we are going to ask you to weave it into the daily life of a student--not for a day or a week, but for a month. That is what we have done in Connecticut--a month. So from the beginning of the day, whether it is math class or science class or whether the student is going to band or working on the school newspaper, or showing up on the athletic field--whatever the activity is--that school tries to take one of those pillars and make it a part of that teaching experience, for the full program, in a sense, to weave it into it so that everybody in school, for that period of time--in our case, a month--works on that word--``respect,'' ``trustworthiness.'' What does it mean? What is the absence of it? How do you become more respectful, more trustworthy? What are examples when it does not happen? It becomes, as I said, part of the seamless garment of that educational experience. I have to tell you, you may say: Well, this sounds wonderful, Senator. It is a nice idea. I wonder how it is working. It is working remarkably well. I can tell you, on the basis of countless conversations I have had with people all across my State, they point to this particular effort as having had success in changing the culture of a school. I am telling you it has had a profound effect not just on the students I mentioned earlier but on the teachers, administrators, faculty, student advisers. They have all benefited as a result of weaving these Character Counts programs into their school life. We spent a lot of time over the last couple months after the tragedy of Littleton, CO, talking about what we might do to solve the problem. Without belaboring the point, we sort of resort to our old bromides. We have one group of us here that will convince you it is gun control that is the answer to the problem, and if we could just deal with gun control, we could solve the problem. I happen to believe that is part of the answer. We have others who say: Look, if we can clean up Hollywood, the videos games, that is the answer to the problem. I would not argue, there is certainly an element that contributes to what happened. But frankly, what happened at Littleton, CO, did not happen all at once. The event did. But I suggest to you that what happened in Littleton, CO, what happened in Arkansas, and Kentucky and Oregon, and other places, in my own State, isolated cases of violence began a long time before the events. There was a breakdown at home. There was a breakdown that occurred weeks, months, years before, that culminated in the tragic events of those days that we all remember with such painful clarity. What Character Counts does here is, it tries to get at the source of the problem early to try to see if we can begin to change the direction, to offer a foundation in basic values to students so that you might change a young person's ideas on how they relate to each other--understanding differences, respecting differences, not having to feel alienated because you are different, not making someone feel isolated and alone because maybe they are not a good athlete or a great student--maybe their clothes are not the ones you would wear or I would wear; they may listen to music that you and I would not particularly find appealing--but to understand that each person is God's creation and that if we can inculcate them with a basic sense of decency, of understanding that they are part of a larger community, as I said at the outset, learning to respect each other, to trust each other, to be honest with each other, then we can begin to change the kind of culture, in my view, that contributes to this growing sense of violence we too often see among our young people. I again thank my colleague from New Mexico. He is the leader on this issue. I am his blocking guard here. I get involved whenever he asks me to, because I am so committed to it and so believe in what he is trying to do. I think the idea of getting our Governors involved is a tremendous idea. We hope that every Governor in the country, if they are not already involved in this, will be willing to join with us and in some public relations efforts, if you will, to raise the level of awareness. We do not have a fixed idea in mind. My colleague mentioned Mr. Josephson and his program. It is a fine program. There are others who have a different point of view on how best to make this work. We have learned to respect what works in, say, a Native American community in the Southwest or a highly ethnic community in my State of Connecticut where you may have differences on how you approach these particular values. We let local communities and school districts and others try to sort out what size fits them best and how to make it work. That is what we want to support, we want to recognize, we want to bring attention to. We want to promote and expand this. Again, we do not have any simple answers here for how you stop some of the problems we are seeing that are becoming too frequent in our society. But I stand here today and tell you that if more communities would adopt a Character Counts program, if they would at least try this--just try it; and we can get you the information; we can put you in touch with people who can help you work through how to start it and get it going so you do not have to make it up on your own--then I promise you, if you try this, if you really give it a chance, you can make a difference not only in your school's life but the individual lives of the people who enter those institutions. It need not be just elementary schools or middle schools. We have not tried it extensively, but I know of one in my State at the high school level where Character Counts has worked, where the principal said: We're going to try it. And it made a difference at that senior high school. So many say: Kids are too old then. They are not too old. They are looking for some direction, some ideas they can hold on to and grasp as roadmaps on how to proceed with their lives. I think the 2 weeks we have designated--October 17 of this year and October 15 of the year 2000--as National Character Counts Week bring us one major step forward, bringing some needed recognition to this very worthwhile program that has made such a difference already in the lives of thousands of people all across our country. Again, I commend my good friend and colleague from New Mexico for his distinguished leadership on this issue.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take a few brief moments to comment on the cloture vote that just occurred regarding H.R. 975, the Steel Import Limitation bill. As has been noted by several of my colleagues this afternoon, this was a difficult vote. There exist compelling interests on both sides of the steel quota issue that were only touched upon earlier. Without question, this legislation is critically important to those men and women involved in the steel industry who have suffered financially due to alleged steel dumping practices. At the same time, this bill could also have a profound effect on this country's trade policy and countless other American industries' relationships with our foreign trading partners. Understanding that these are cursory assessments of the deeper substance of this bill, I present them simply to underscore the need to discuss the bill at greater length, to emphasize the importance of allowing Senators the opportunity to articulate their specific concerns and positions on this legislation. This was not a vote on final passage or a vote to support this bill in its current form. Rather, it was a vote to move forward and fully consider this legislation and amendments to it. Regardless of one's opinion on the impact of this legislation, it deserved the chance to be considered and debated completely and fairly.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Let me briefly describe what that amendment is, and then I am also going to propose a second amendment, which, again, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member are familiar with. My intent is not to force a vote on that amendment but to raise the issue included in the amendment. The amendment that will be adopted later today would direct the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of State ``to make every reasonable effort to ensure that each person named in a report of investigation by that office be afforded an opportunity to refute allegations or assertions that may be contained in such report about him or her.'' In the interest of accuracy and thoroughness, the amendment would also require the inspector general to include exculpatory information about an individual that is discovered in the course of the investigation to be included in the final report produced by the inspector general. I am not going to take a great deal of the Senate's time on the specific details of this amendment because I know the managers very much wish to complete action on this bill. But it seems what I have said about this amendment is common sense. One would assume that what I have said would be the case already. If allegations involving a criminal matter would be raised about any citizen of this country, under due process that citizen would have the right to know about those allegations and an opportunity to respond to those allegations, and any exculpatory information would be included in the determination of whether or not to go forward. We would assume that to be the case. Candidly, I must tell you, when investigations are done by the inspector general at the State Department--and, regrettably, other agencies--that is not the case. So this amendment on this bill is designed to correct the problem at the State Department. It doesn't go any further than that. I want to thank Senator Helms and Senator Biden for their assistance with this amendment and mention, in particular, that Senator Helms and I will be including a colloquy for the Record that clarifies technical matters with respect to the intent and scope of this amendment. I have proposed this amendment because I truly believe that it will improve the functioning and work product of the Office of the Inspector General in carrying out her investigations. I also have another motive as well. It is a matter of fundamental fairness, in my view. Many of the investigations that the IG deals with in the course of her duties would be improved, in my view, were the individuals involved given an opportunity to comment about the information developed in the course of the investigation as it relates to those individuals. Sadly, this is not the general practice of the inspector general, although it does happen in some cases at the discretion of the inspector general. In most cases, a report gets finalized from the inspector general, and the individual never gets a chance to correct what may be factual inaccuracies before a decision is taken to refer the matter to the Justice Department, or to the Director General of the State Department for possible criminal prosecution or for disciplinary action. I think it is only fair to allow an individual to be provided that information prior to some disciplinary action being recommended, because, frankly, even though there is a grievance process, there is a tendency in the Congress to assume that the inspector general has accurately stated the case and the individual's promotion prospects are put into jeopardy. The chairman and ranking member know that I propose this amendment in part because I know firsthand that had the inspector general checked out some of the information her investigators erroneously included in one of their reports related to this Senator, that information would never have been part of the report. In fact, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the Record some correspondence between myself and the inspector general.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers of the pending bill graciously agreed to include one of two of the amendments I had proposed to offer in the managers' package that will be adopted later today. I extend my thanks to Senator Biden and Senator Helms.