Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, and Senator Kennedy, to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor (Corridor). Congressman Gejdenson from Connecticut and Congressman Neal from Massachusetts will be introducing companion legislation today in other body. The 25-town area in eastern Connecticut was originally designated a Corridor in 1994, when the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 103-449. The purpose of the Corridor is to encourage grassroots efforts to preserve historic and environmental treasures while promoting economic development. Today's legislation builds upon the success of the Corridor and extends it by including nine towns from Massachusetts and one additional town from Connecticut. The towns affected include Union, Connecticut, and the following towns in Massachusetts--Brimfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Holland, Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Webster. Because this is an established Corridor which has been developing and implementing cultural, economic and environmental programs to preserve this beautiful and historic region of Connecticut, the legislation we are introducing increases the Corridor authorization level to $1.5 million. This level of funding is consistent with recent new Corridor authorization levels of $1 million. Our Corridor has been significantly underfunded each year; I can only imagine the further great works that can be undertaken with adequate funding. Unfortunately, Connecticut ranks near the bottom among States in the amount of Federal land within its borders, such as National Parks, Recreation Areas, and Forests. That is why I joined with Congressman Gejdenson back in 1993 to introduce the original bill designating the Quinebaug and Shetucket Heritage Corridor and why I am advocating an increase in the size and scope of it. Extending through eastern Connecticut and soon southeastern Massachusetts, the Corridor is within a two hour's drive from the major metropolitan areas of Boston, New Haven, Hartford and New York. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley saw a rebirth with the dawn of the industrial age. Hundreds of mills were built along the banks of the rivers and this region became a leader in the textile industry. Today, the mills are quiet, many of them abandoned, and the valley is a picturesque area of rolling hills and beautiful farms. It offers landscapes for hiking and biking, rivers for canoeing and fishing, and abandoned mills which offer a glimpse at history. It is the birthplace of Revolutionary War hero Nathan Hale and the Prudence Crandall School, the site of the first teacher-training school for African-American women established in 1833. There are also many Native American and archaeological sites. The area is rich in history and those groups and individuals involved with the Corridor have developed a management plan to preserve local resources, enhance recreational potential and promote appropriate development. By joining forces with the people of Massachusetts, a more integrated system can be undertaken. The important historic and cultural resources do not stop at the border. In the few short years that the Corridor has been in place, its stewards have provided grants and technical assistance to towns and nonprofits embarking on historic preservation and research, economic development, tourism, natural resource conservation and recreation. The Corridor has public and private support throughout Connecticut and the regions in Massachusetts look forward to working with the existing partnerships to enhance their quality of life. It is the goal of the Corridor to ensure a healthy environment and robust economy compatible with the character of the region. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to look favorably on this effort and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator John Warner and twelve of our colleagues in the Senate are introducing a bill to end restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba--the so-called Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999. Our House colleagues Jose Serrano and Jim Leach are introducing the House companion bill today as well. Yesterday the Clinton Administration took some long overdue steps to end the practice of using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons. President Clinton has decided to reverse existing U.S. policy of prohibiting sales of such items to Iran, Libya, and Sudan. We applaud that decision. Joe Lockhart, the White House spokesman said President Clinton had decided that, ``food should not be used as a tool of foreign policy, except under the most compelling circumstances.'' In announcing the change in policy yesterday, Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat stated that President Clinton had approved the policy after a two-year review concluded that the sale of food and medicine ``doesn't encourage a nation's military capability or its ability to support terrorism.'' I am gratified that the administration has finally recognized what we determined some time ago, namely that ``sales of food, medicine and other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's military capacities or support terrorism.'' On the contrary, funds spent on agricultural commodities and products are not available for other, less desirable uses. Regrettably, the Administration did not include Cuba in its announced policy changes. It seems to me terribly inconsistent to say that it is wrong to deny the children of Iran, Sudan and Libya access to food and medicine, but it is all right to deny Cuban children, living ninety miles from our shores, similar access. The administration's rationale for not including Cuba was rather confused. The best I can discern from the conflicting rationale for not including Cuba in the announced policy changes was that policy toward Cuba has been established by legislation rather than executive order, and therefore should be changed through legislative action. I disagree with that judgment. However, in order to facilitate the lifting of such restrictions on such sales to Cuba, Senator Warner, myself, and twelve of our Senate colleagues have decided to move forward with this legislation today. It is our assumption that the Clinton Administration will support this legislation, since it does legislatively for Cuba what it has just instituted by Executive order for Sudan, Libya and Iran. What about those who say that it is already possible to sell food and medicine to Cuba? To those people I would say, ``If that is what you think, then you should have no problem supporting this legislation.'' However, I must tell you, Mr. President, that the people who say that are not members of the U.S. agricultural or pharmaceutical industries. Ask any representative of a major drug or grain company about selling to Cuba and they will tell you it is virtually impossible. The Administration's own statistics speak for themselves. Department of Commerce licensing statistics prove our point: Between 1992 and mid-1997, the Commerce Department approved only 28 licenses for such sales, valued at less than $1 million, for the entire period. To give you some perspective: prior to the passage of the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act which shut down U.S. food and medicine exports, Cuba was importing roughly $700 million of such products on an annual basis from U.S. subsidiaries. Moreover, since Commerce Department officials do no follow up on whether proposed licenses culminate in actual sales, the high water mark for the export of U.S. medicines to Cuba over a four and one half year period doesn't even represent roughly 0.1% of the exports of U.S. food and medicines that took place prior to 1992. For these reasons we feel strongly that the complexities of the U.S. licensing process, coupled with on-site verification requirements, serve as de facto prohibitions on U.S. pharmaceutical companies doing business with Cuba. Food sales are virtually impossible to undertake as well. Let me be clear--I am not defending the Cuban government for its human rights practices or some of its other policy decisions. I believe that we should speak out strongly on such matters as respect for human rights and the treatment of political dissidents. But U.S. policy with respect to Cuba goes far beyond that-- it denies eleven million innocent Cuban men, women and children access to U.S. food and medicine. The highly respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch--a severe critic of the Cuban government's human rights practices-- recently concluded, that the ``(U.S.) embargo has not only failed to bring about human rights improvements in Cuba,'' it has actually ``become counterproductive'' to achieving that goal. America is not about denying medicine or food to the people in Sudan, in Libya, or in Iran, and it shouldn't be about denying food and medicine to the Cuban people either, certainly not my America. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this legislation when it comes to a vote later this year.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Hagel, which we hope will bring desperately needed reform to the process by which the United States imposes sanctions on other nations. Eighty years ago, President Wilson formally added economic sanctions to America's foreign policy arsenal for the first time, saying that with sanctions as a weapon, ``there will be no need for force.'' In the intervening decades, we have taken a greater liking to sanctions than President Wilson ever could have imagined. I doubt very much, however, that he would approve of the way in which we employ that tool today nor of the results accomplished by sanctions. When President Wilson described his idea of sanctions as a diplomatic tool, he was trying to convince the Senate to ratify American membership in the League of Nations. The sanctions he envisioned were broad, multi-national efforts designed to affect specific results under limited circumstances. He also intended sanctions to serve as one component of multi-stage escalation of diplomatic pressure, rather than a complete response. Our method for imposing sanctions today bears almost no resemblance to President Wilson's original concept. Sanctions have become the first response to actions which are objectionable to the United States. Very often, they are also a response in and of themselves, rather than part of a coherent escalation of pressure. In addition, the vast majority of American sanctions are not the multilateral efforts President Wilson envisioned. Rather, Mr. President, they are unilateral efforts which anger our allies, damage our global standing, and hurt our own businesses and people. And lest we excuse the drawbacks of unilateral sanctions with the argument that the benefits for American foreign policy outweigh the harm, let me be very clear: there are very rarely such benefits. For far too long we have subscribed to the mistaken view that sanctions represent concrete steps more powerful than mere condemnation and more speedy than diplomacy. Unilateral sanctions, Mr. President may make us feel good by severing access to American know-how, markets, ideas, and products. They may help us demonstrate that we are willing to be tough on governments with unacceptable policies or even allow us to appease a particular constituency that has clamored for action against a particular rogue nation. What unilateral sanctions do not do, however, is work. We are blindfolded by our own rhetoric, Mr. President, if we think that sanctions are the key to correcting the behavior of targeted nations. A recent study found that perhaps one out of every five unilateral sanctions has any desired effect at all. And in those few cases where our goal was met, such as a change in the President of Colombia, sanctions were only one of many factors. When we mention successes, we all too often ignore the much longer list of countries--including Haiti, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Panama, and North Korea--where sanctions have failed. In fact, sanctions may even allow some authoritarian regimes to consolidate their control by providing them with a convenient scapegoat to blame for their domestic failures. In addition, we must not lose sight of the unintended consequences of sanctions. They hurt our economy. They hurt our allies. They hurt our ability to achieve our foreign policy goals. Perhaps most of all, they hurt our own citizens. Mr. President, it is imperative that we move expeditiously to correct the deep flaws in our system for imposing sanctions. In recent years, Congress has imposed sanctions intended to discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles to deliver them, advance human rights and end genocide, end state-supported terrorism, discourage armed aggression, thwart drug trafficking, protect the environment and even, in a few cases, oust governments that are anathema to the United States. Since President Wilson proposed the use of sanctions to realize American foreign policy goals, we have imposed them more than 110 times. Today, however, the situation is growing more acute. In just the past six years, Congress passed more than 70 sanctions. That is more than 11 per year. Last year, we had sanctions in place against 26 different countries which included more than half of the world's population. When Congress passes these sanctions, however, it often takes a second congressional action to repeal them. This onerous process robs our nation of the ability to react to changing circumstances, interferes with the President and Secretary of State's mandate to negotiate with foreign governments and leaders and prevents the lifting of sanctions which have little chance of success while bringing harm on the United States' national interests. The bill that I am proposing today will correct these deficiencies by giving the President the authority to delay, suspend or terminate any sanction that he determines is not in the United States' national interest. We often think of sanctions as cost-less actions since they require no governmental appropriation. As business leaders and workers across the country will tell you, however, that perception is simply erroneous. In 1998, the United States had sanctions, of some sort, in place against 26 different nations including China and India, the two most populous nations in the world. Those sanctions covered well over half of the world's population, cutting American firms off from billions of potential customers. According to the Institute for International Economics here in Washington, the economic sanctions currently in effect cost American businesses $20 billion annually in lost export sales and cost America's workers 200,000 high-wage jobs. Those figures, however, tell only part of the story. The cost to businesses does not end when the sanctions are repealed. Rather, the absence of American companies allows foreign competitors to make inroads leaving the American businesses to try battle the entrenched competition, along with any lingering popular resentment toward the United States, when the barriers fall. Needless to say, our allies think that American unilateral sanctions, while affording them a rather pleasant competitive advantage, lack a degree of rationality. It would be shortsighted, Mr. President, to consider the cost merely in terms of the monetary loss. Rather, our wholesale use of unilateral sanctions damages our standing in the world community. Our diplomats have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to assuage the concerns of our allies who find themselves on the receiving end of some of our secondary sanctions. Meanwhile, when dealing with target nations, they are deprived of the ability to offer a carrot in exchange for policy changes. Moreover, the fact that more than half of the world's population is now on the receiving end of American sanctions and our willingness to impose sanctions when the rest of the world finds them unnecessary degrades our ability to convince other nations to follow our leadership. Congress' current infatuation with sanctions also hampers our nation's ability to conduct diplomacy. The Constitution gives Congress a powerful role in foreign policy, from the power to declare war to the power to regulate commerce. Clearly, Congress is within its Constitutional mandate when it imposes sanctions on foreign governments. What Congress cannot do, however, is micro-manage our foreign policy on a day to day basis. The power to negotiate with foreign governments and leaders rests solely with the President. Anything which detracts from his ability to negotiate, including sanctions over which he has no control over, damages his ability to exact concessions and come to an agreement acceptable to the United States. I am not arguing, Mr. President, that sanctions are not a legitimate foreign policy tool nor that, if used appropriately, they can be efficacious. Nor am I arguing that all sanctions currently in place should be removed. To the contrary, I strongly support sanctions against countries such as Iraq and Yugoslavia. Sanctions, however, should be part of a comprehensive foreign policy with clear goals. They should be imposed for a finite period of time with an option to extend if the situation warrants continued pressure. Finally, sanctions must allow the President and Secretary of State the room they need to maneuver in order to effectively negotiate foreign governments. It is also essential that we strive for multinational support of our sanctions. Board sanctions, either global or at least in concert with the other industrialized countries, not only have a far greater chance of affecting the desired result but minimize the threat to our international leadership, and domestic economy in both the short and long term. Occasionally, other nations take actions so offensive to American policy that the United States must act regardless of foreign cooperation. In those cases, we must endeavor to minimize the negative effects our sanctions have on third countries and on our own economy. We must also carefully target our sanctions at the offending government officials rather than the general population--people who often have little or no ability to affect meaningful change. Sanctions deserve a place, even a prominent place, in our foreign policy tool kit. Working with our allies, they can have the power President Wilson described shortly after witnessing the horrors of World War I. At the same time, Mr. President, we must not be so infatuated with sanctions as to replace tools which have stood us in such good stead for more than two centuries, such as diplomacy. The legislation that my colleagues and I are introducing today will make the sanctions we do impose more powerful and improve the results while simultaneously reducing the costs to Americans and our allies. In fact, Mr. President, these reforms will lead to a stronger American foreign policy capable of realizing our foreign policy goals more quickly and with less effort. This bill will allow us to finally reach the goal Congress held when it began imposing sanctions at this alarming pace. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan resolution and enacting these overdue reforms.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I do.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, and Senator Kennedy, to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor (Corridor). Congressman Gejdenson from Connecticut and Congressman Neal from Massachusetts will be introducing companion legislation today in other body. The 25-town area in eastern Connecticut was originally designated a Corridor in 1994, when the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 103-449. The purpose of the Corridor is to encourage grassroots efforts to preserve historic and environmental treasures while promoting economic development. Today's legislation builds upon the success of the Corridor and extends it by including nine towns from Massachusetts and one additional town from Connecticut. The towns affected include Union, Connecticut, and the following towns in Massachusetts--Brimfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Holland, Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Webster. Because this is an established Corridor which has been developing and implementing cultural, economic and environmental programs to preserve this beautiful and historic region of Connecticut, the legislation we are introducing increases the Corridor authorization level to $1.5 million. This level of funding is consistent with recent new Corridor authorization levels of $1 million. Our Corridor has been significantly underfunded each year; I can only imagine the further great works that can be undertaken with adequate funding. Unfortunately, Connecticut ranks near the bottom among States in the amount of Federal land within its borders, such as National Parks, Recreation Areas, and Forests. That is why I joined with Congressman Gejdenson back in 1993 to introduce the original bill designating the Quinebaug and Shetucket Heritage Corridor and why I am advocating an increase in the size and scope of it. Extending through eastern Connecticut and soon southeastern Massachusetts, the Corridor is within a two hour's drive from the major metropolitan areas of Boston, New Haven, Hartford and New York. The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley saw a rebirth with the dawn of the industrial age. Hundreds of mills were built along the banks of the rivers and this region became a leader in the textile industry. Today, the mills are quiet, many of them abandoned, and the valley is a picturesque area of rolling hills and beautiful farms. It offers landscapes for hiking and biking, rivers for canoeing and fishing, and abandoned mills which offer a glimpse at history. It is the birthplace of Revolutionary War hero Nathan Hale and the Prudence Crandall School, the site of the first teacher-training school for African-American women established in 1833. There are also many Native American and archaeological sites. The area is rich in history and those groups and individuals involved with the Corridor have developed a management plan to preserve local resources, enhance recreational potential and promote appropriate development. By joining forces with the people of Massachusetts, a more integrated system can be undertaken. The important historic and cultural resources do not stop at the border. In the few short years that the Corridor has been in place, its stewards have provided grants and technical assistance to towns and nonprofits embarking on historic preservation and research, economic development, tourism, natural resource conservation and recreation. The Corridor has public and private support throughout Connecticut and the regions in Massachusetts look forward to working with the existing partnerships to enhance their quality of life. It is the goal of the Corridor to ensure a healthy environment and robust economy compatible with the character of the region. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to look favorably on this effort and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I take a moment on the pending issue before the Senate. The year 2000 litigation reform proposal has certainly been the subject of a lot of discussion over the last couple of days. As the ranking Democrat on the committee chaired by the distinguished Senator from Utah, Robert Bennett, we have spent the last couple of years looking at this issue--intensely the last year and a half. We have held 18 or 19 hearings on the subject of this computer bug problem and its potential effect not only on our own economy but the global economy and the disruptions it would cause in the lives of average Americans, in everything from flying airplanes to operating elevators, emergency rooms in hospitals, schoolrooms and classrooms, the functions of small businesses that depend upon computer data information today to maintain their businesses. A legitimate area of concern has been raised regarding potential litigation surrounding this issue. I, for one, am very supportive of passing legislation to try to minimize the tremendous cost of lawsuits that could ensue for a number of years as a result of this anticipated but undealt with problem. I won't go into how the Y2K issue emerged. Suffice it to say that it went back to economies of scale a number of years ago when computers were in their infancy and we were trying to save space in developing or programming computer information. Rather than list all four digits, which took two more spaces, only two spaces were used, ending with the last two digits of the year rather than including all four digits. The assumption was, years ago, that modern technology would take over, the old computers would be replaced, and that new information would include the millennium, therefore solving the millennium problem. As we painfully know, with some 245 days to go now before January 1 of the year 2000, that is not the case. Not only has this problem not been erased in terms of the date issue, but the embedded chip problem makes this a confounding issue. Had it not been for Senator Bennett of Utah calling out to all of the Members to get involved in this question, and my involvement with him after his initial interest in this in the Banking Committee where we examined financial institutions, I don't think we would have done as good a job getting the Federal Government and the country as a whole as interested in this subject matter as it is today. As our reports have indicated, we are actually in very good shape in many areas. However, there is the potential problem of litigation. Some estimates indicate that the cost of litigation surrounding the year 2000 problem could be as much as $1 trillion. That may be an exaggeration. No one knows for certain how big a problem this may be in terms of clogging up our courts--primarily with companies suing companies, I presume, in contract litigation--over failed businesses or machinery that didn't operate as advertised. There are several bills before us. We are trying to work out our differences, to see if we cannot put together a proposal here that would attract broad, bipartisan support of legislation that will do several things. First of all, it tries to avoid litigation altogether. I think this is common of all the various proposals. I do not have each one of them in front of me, but all the proposals try to have some waiting period or some means by which a plaintiff and defendant could see if they could resolve the issue which had prompted the litigation in the first instance. I think that is a wise inclusion here. We ought to do everything we can to avoid litigation and the cost to defendants and plaintiffs. So I commend the authors of those provisions for trying to minimize the cost. We then try to insist upon some specificity in the allegations, so plaintiffs would have to lay out in some detail what the charges are, where the shortcomings are, giving defendants an opportunity to know what they have been charged with. It sounds like a simple enough request, but in the past we have had a serious problem where merely broad, vague allegations were enough to prompt litigation that could tie up individuals for years and cost literally thousands, in some cases millions, of dollars to the defendants when, in the final analysis, there was a lack of proven culpability. So we are requiring some specificity in the allegations. We are also talking about trying to reduce the probability of class action lawsuits, particularly in an area which is primarily contract law. But in order to do that, there is a sense of proportional liability here, which is something we included in the securities litigation reform bill--which passed this body and the other body substantially a few years ago and ultimately, after an initial veto, was passed over the President's veto by the Senate and the House--and the uniform standards legislation which followed thereafter. The proportional liability idea is one of basic fairness. It says defendants ought to be brought into a lawsuit based on the percentage of their alleged culpability, not based on the depth of their pockets financially. If a company is 10-percent responsible for the problem, they ought to bear 10 percent of the cost of liability. In fact, the cases prove that too often what has happened is we have plaintiffs-- their attorneys--who go out and seek out the companies with deep pockets that may have had little or nothing to do with the issue but, because they are affluent potential marginal defendants, they get brought into the litigation. If there is a successful result on the part of the plaintiff, then that marginally involved defendant, under the joint and several provisions of most of our law in this area, no matter how marginally involved, are responsible for the full cost of the lawsuit, paying the awards. Again, I appreciate the lawyers who want to have that. I understand that is one way to get paid. But in fairness to those companies which are only marginally involved, it does not seem to be a very fair way to proceed. There are some very legitimate issues people raise about trying to come up with some modified version of the proportional liability provisions. They may have some value. I am still listening to their arguments, but I am not yet convinced that is such that we need to modify it in this kind of bill. The argument they make, and it has some appeal, is that in dealing with the year 2000 litigation, it is fundamentally contract law. Unlike securities litigation or litigation in product liability or other areas, in contract law the notion of proportional liability may not have as much meaning as it would in other areas. So there is some argument. There is an argument being made that you may have a more difficult time reaching offshore companies that are major computer producers, manufacturers, software manufacturers and producers. That argument, again, has some appeal. It has not yet persuaded this Senator to support any moderation in the proportional liability sections of these bills. The last series of ideas I would like to see incorporated--and I am prepared at the appropriate time, if we get to it, to offer an amendment, I hope with several of my colleagues who share these views-- is we ought not, in my view, have any caps on punitive damages except in the case of small businesses and municipalities. I do not think a cap on punitive damages is needed in this area. We are not talking about personal injury matters here; we are talking about contract law. I understand for smaller businesses that could be a huge problem and put them out of business--on a small lawsuit, destroy them. And for municipalities where taxpayers end up paying the costs of these burdens, I think most of our colleagues will accept those arguments. The second is to try to raise the limits or lift the limits on the directors' and officers' liability. In this area, I also do not think there is a need for caps on the amount of liability a director or officer should pay in a successful plaintiffs' suit dealing with Y2K issues. I say that because when we passed the disclosure act a year ago, dealing with the year 2000 legislation, we provided in that legislation a safe harbor for forward-looking statements by the officers and directors and managers of these businesses. It seems to me that protection plus the general business rule which protects business leaders from the kind of frivolous lawsuits that some might envision eliminates the necessity for having a cap on directors' and officers' liability in this area. So I include in my amendment lifting the cap on that issue. Last is the issue of the state of mind question, which is the one that is a little more thorny for people. This can get rather arcane and esoteric, but it is an important issue. Presently, under the bill offered by the Senator from Arizona, which is the bill before us, the one that is on the floor, and I believe under the bill offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch and others, that would have a state of mind that would require that it be--I think clear and convincing is the standard that is used. I may be wrong on one of those, but I think it is in the McCain bill. The argument there is that we used clear and convincing as a standard when we did the full disclosure bill. If we used it there, why not continue using it here? We used it there because we wanted to protect, in a sense, and encourage the leaders of industry and business to disclose to each other where they were in the Y2K remediation efforts. So, candidly, it was to make it more difficult for someone to sue an officer or director of a company that was reaching out to its clients, to its fellows in the business community, its peers, by sharing information. So it was part of the incentive of the Disclosure Act to get that information out. The reason I am uneasy about including clear and convincing in this bill is because I can see some who want to bring lawsuits on income- related matters where it may actually be more of a product liability issue, it may be a tort issue, but the defendant will say it is an income issue. So, even though the plaintiff is not thinking about the Y2K problem, the defendant will use the Y2K defense, raising the bar to clear and convincing and make it very difficult for that plaintiff to be able to bring an action which has little or nothing to do with the year 2000 issue. I also think we established in the securities litigation area a lesser standard. In fact, I know we did, in clear and convincing. It seems to me that by using the standard we used in the securities litigation area, we will be adopting a standard in a more parallel fact situation than the disclosure bill of last year, and one that has already proved to be successful in winning a lot of support in this Chamber and in the other body. It has become the law of the land. We now have a few years of experience of that standard in place. Clear and convincing opens up a new door that we do not know, quite frankly, where it goes. I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this proposal on the punitive caps on the directors' and officers' liability, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, when and if I get a chance to offer it, and on the issue of state of mind. That may not be enough. I am sure there will be other amendments others may want to offer. But I think if you have a bill that roughly incorporates what I described to deal with the year 2000 problem, we can pass a bill with a substantial bipartisan vote; it can go to the House and go to the President's desk, which I am confident he will sign into law. I know the administration and I know the President and the Vice President care about this issue. They think it is important. We have a responsibility to act. This issue is not as galvanizing, obviously, as the issue surrounding the tragedy in Kosovo or the tragedy in Colorado. Clearly, those are two issues which this Senate must debate and discuss, in my view. Tragedy in Littleton, COLORADO We ought to be talking about ways in which we can minimize the tragedy that occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. I want to hear my colleagues' ideas on what we can do as a country. I am suspicious of quick legislative solutions to what provoked and caused the loss of 13 lives in that tragedy in Colorado, but nonetheless, I want to hear a good discussion of what my colleagues are hearing from their constituents across this country as to how we, as a legislative body, can make a positive contribution to help this country not only come to terms with what happened a week ago, but how we can do everything in our power to minimize the recurrence of that tragedy. Kosovo Secondly, on Kosovo, clearly there the events, as they are unfolding, indicate that we are on the right track. It is not a perfect policy, but I am proud of the fact that my country is standing up for the rights of human beings who have been treated so poorly, to put it mildly, by the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. It was almost 60 years ago yesterday that a ship called the St. Louis left Europe with one-way tickets. Many who are part of the families of survivors or survivors of the Holocaust will know the name of the ship, St. Louis. That ship sailed from Europe with a boatload of passengers, all of whom were Jewish. They were bound for Cuba. When they arrived at Cuba, only 28 of them were allowed to come ashore. Unfortunately, our country denied that ship the right to enter U.S. waters. Rather than being a one-way ticket to freedom and avoiding the horrors of the Holocaust, the St. Louis was forced to return to Europe, and all those passengers on that boat faced the fate of the Holocaust. This Nation and the nation of Cuba at the time turned its back on a shipload of people seeking freedom. Sixty years later, Mr. President, we are confronted with a human tragedy that, I argue, is not on the magnitude of the Holocaust but of a significant magnitude where 1.5 million people have been tortured, have been executed, have been displaced because of the appetites of one individual and those who support him in Serbia. It is not easy to stand up. It is not easy to build coalitions. It is costly to be involved in this. In my America, we stand up for people who face that kind of a problem, and when we can do so with 18 other nations standing with us, bearing the cost in proportional ways, to try to right this wrong, then I think it is something of which all Americans can be proud. It is legitimate to have a debate over the execution of this conflict, how it is being prosecuted, who is doing what and how fast it is occurring, whether or not we should have ground troops or whether or not the airstrikes are performing and achieving the desired results. I think we are on the right track. We ought to have a debate on that as well. It is healthy to have that kind of discussion. I do not mean to say Y2K is not important. Hardly so. I think it is very important. It is an issue we should resolve in this body, come to terms with, try to pass it here, and send the bill to the President for his signature. If we do not, we will regret deeply what may happen, and we will look back and wish that we had taken the short time we need to pass a bill that will allow for this problem to be avoided. I also hope we will get to the issue of Kosovo, get to the issue of Columbine High School and the tragedy in Colorado, and discuss and debate how we think we can respond to those issues as well. Mr. President, I see the arrival of my colleague from California. She may not be ready to say something at this moment. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the resolution, I rise today to add my remarks in support of, and in gratitude to, our former Senate Legal Counsel, Mr. Tom Griffith. It is always with mixed emotions that I speak on occasions such as this; while I am glad for Tom and wish him well in his return to private practice, I know that the Senate will miss the wise counsel and dedication he demonstrated during his nearly 4 years of service to this body. The ancient Chinese had a curse in which they wished their victim a life ``in interesting times''. For better or for worse, Tom lived such a life as Senate Legal Counsel. From my place on the Rules Committee-- first as a member and now as Ranking Member--I had a unique perspective on the Legal Counsel's efforts to deal with numerous ``interesting'' issues presenting novel, rare and in some cases historic issues, including implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act, resolution of the Louisiana election challenge, and, of course, the recent impeachment trial. Speaking for myself--and, I suspect, most of my colleagues--I must say that Tom handled those difficult responsibilities with great confidence and skill. A more contemporary observer--and one of Connecticut's most famous residents--Mark Twain, once suggested: ``Always do right--this will gratify some and astonish the rest.'' During his tenure as Legal Counsel, Tom exemplified this philosophy, impressing all who knew him with his knowledge of the law and never succumbing to the temptation to bend the law to partisan ends. All of us who serve here in the Senate know the importance of the rule of law; but let us never forget that it is individuals like Mr. Thomas Griffith whose calling it is to put that ideal into practice. Once again, I wish to express my gratitude to Tom for his years of service, and I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I'll be brief because I know my colleagues from Oregon and South Carolina and others may want to speak on this. I think there is a need to try to come up with some legislation to minimize what could be runaway litigation in this Nation. There have already been some 80 lawsuits, many of them class action lawsuits, filed on the Y2K issue. I think all of my colleagues are aware that the leaders asked Senator Bennett of Utah and myself to chair this Special Committee of the Senate to examine the Y2K problem. We have been working for well over a year. We have had some 17 hearings in which we have invited various sectors of our economy --both private and public--to give their assessment of how the remediation efforts are progressing and the condition of our institutions. Both of us, I think, feel confident that things are progressing well, that we are not going to have as much of a problem as we thought a few months ago, but that there still could be difficulties. Y2K issues internationally may be a much greater problem than those here at home. There is a report out which has been sent to each and every Senate office, which I encourage our colleagues to take a look at to get a sense of how the issue is progressing. It is an open-ended question whether we are going to have a whole new area of litigation here-- unwarranted litigation--which could destroy some small companies that lack the capacity to take on the kind of predatory lawsuits that too often do more damage than good. Simultaneously, I adamantly oppose any legislation to try to use this issue as a way of rewriting the tort laws of the country. This ought not to be that kind of vehicle. There is a legitimacy to the Y2K problem, but no one should think it possible to take advantage of the Y2K problem to achieve tort reform beyond the scope of the actual problem. I don't think our colleagues would support it--at least not a majority, and the legislation, if it managed to get through Congress, would be vetoed. As the Senator from Arizona pointed out, we would have failed in our obligation to try to do something in an intelligent, thoughtful, common-sense way that legitimately deals with the issue presented by the Y2K problem without going overboard and doing, as some have suggested, a lot more damage than good. I am hopeful we can work something out here. Senator Wyden has been working on it. I know the Senator from South Carolina has strong interests in this issue, as he has on so many other issues. We can find some common language here. My hope is that we will enjoy broad-based support in the Congress, achieve the desired effects, and provide some real assistance in the face of this potential problem that lurks 253 days from today, which begins the new millennium. Senator Bennett and I have spent the last year serving on a Senate committee totally devoted to the Y2K issue. We've held 18 hearings exploring every sector of our economy that might be affected by the Y2K problem, including financial institutions, utilities, healthcare, telecommunications, and business. Throughout this year one thing has been made abundantly clear. Wherever the Y2K problem exists next year, litigation will follow. Americans have become accustomed to living in a litigious society. The occasional abuses of the legal system that come along arise from problems that are limited in scope. As a result, the numbers of lawsuits related to those problems are limited, and our legal system and economy continue to function notwithstanding these occasional abuses. But the Y2K problem is not limited in scope. Potentially, any business in the country might be swept into the Y2K problem, either because it is itself not prepared or because a firm it depends upon is not prepared. Just six weeks ago the committee reported that as many as 15 percent of the businesses in this country will suffer Y2K-related failures of some kind. Even now we read that small and medium-sized businesses across the globe are not taking the necessary steps to become Y2K-compliant, and many think they don't have a Y2K problem. Since businesses are interconnected these days, just one failure in one business may generate cascading failures that may then generate numerous lawsuits. It has been suggested that as a result of Y2K, the United States could easily find itself witnessing a huge surge in litigation. This potential litigious bloodletting could have long-term consequences on the economic well-being of our country. Various experts, including the Gartner Group from my own state of Connecticut, have estimated that the costs of litigation may rise to $1 trillion, a phenomenal figure. Such a massive amount of litigation has the potential to overwhelm the court system, disrupting already-crowded dockets for years into the next millennium. We must be careful that an avalanche of lawsuits does not smother American corporations and bury their competitive edge. A maelstrom of class action lawsuits could have long-term consequences on the American economy and the American people. The rush to file lawsuits might curb the future economic development in a number of different sectors. Moreover, all of the money that would be set aside this year by businesses for legal expenses associated with the Y2K problem, both as defendants and as plaintiffs, cannot be spent on fixing the Y2K problem. As we heard in our hearing on this issue, both large and small businesses are concerned that the fear of litigation later is preventing them from solving problems now. For this reason, I have long believed that the Congress could perform an essential service to the nation's economy by developing legislation that would encourage companies, in the first instance, to solve their own Y2K problems instead of going to court right away, and to curtail the inevitable frivolous litigation that accompanies any national problem. We should not force businesses to choose between spending money on remediation or spending money on preparing for litigation. An alternative to this choice is reasonable litigation reform. Within the Banking Committee, I am on record for supporting significant securities litigation reform. Our 1995 bill, which was passed, despite veto by the White House, spoke to definitive and repetitive litigation abuse. At that time the legal system was no longer an avenue for aggrieved investors seeking justice and restitution. Instead, it had become a pathway for a few enterprising attorneys to manipulate legal procedures for their own profit. This profit came at the expense and the detriment of legitimate companies and investors across the nation. The crucial factor driving securities reform legislation was a specific, clear-cut pattern of abusive litigation. In the case of Y2K, however, we don't yet know what abuses might arise. In other words, I have strongly supported litigation reform efforts in the past. But clearly we need a bipartisan, narrowly crafted, well- structured, and easily understandable bill. As with securities litigation reform, the need for Y2K litigation reform arises from a national problem amenable to a narrow, tailored solution, such as the bill I introduced. I have great concerns that the bill before us today does not represent the narrow, tailored solution to the Y2K problem that I believe is necessary. It contains broad provisions tantamount to massive tort reform, which should be saved for another day. The Y2K problem should not be used as an excuse to pile on these broad measures. I think we can all agree on what we'd like a bill to do; indeed, the bill before us today and the Hatch-Feinstein bill contain many of the same provisions as are in my bill. I take issue, however, with a few provisions in both of these bills that I veiw as unnecessary window dressing for interests unrelated to the Y2K problem. First, the bill before us places caps on punitive damages except where the defendant acted intentionally. Nothing inherent in the Y2K problem requires that this be done. No state allows for the award of punitive damages unless the defendant has acted in some egregious manner. Defendants who have behaved responsibly will not be assessed punitive damages, and defendants who have behaved egregiously should not be rewarded by limiting the amount of punitive damages which they might be required to pay. My bill does not cap punitive damages because it is not necessary to do so. Second, the bill before us places caps on the personal liability of officers and directors, those individuals with the ultimate responsibility for the management of their firms. For years now Senator Bennett and I have done everything possible to get upper management, including officers and directors, not only to pay attention to the Y2K efforts of their firms but to become directly involved and responsible for those efforts. After a lot of hard work in this area, our efforts have finally paid off and most upper management of major firms have appropriately shouldered these responsibilities. To come in now and place caps on the personal liability of officers and directors would set back our efforts to get management's attention on this issue. Passing such caps gives these ultimate decision-makers less incentive to maintain their active involvement in Y2K remediation efforts. A related provision in the bill that raises the standard of proof for such individuals for many tort actions gives them the same excuse. My bill does not contain such provisions because I believe they are an excessive solution to an uncertain problem. What my bill does do is provide the narrow, tailored provisions I think necessary to address the problem presented by the spectre of Y2K litigation. Just as the other two Y2K liability bills introduced in the Senate do, my bill provides for a 90-day cooling off period to allow businesses to work out their Y2K problems together before they are forced to go to court. Just as the other bills do, my bill places a duty to mitigate damages on all parties which gives them an incentive to seek out solutions to their own Y2K problems. Just as the other bills do, my bill discourages frivolous litigation by including specific pleading requirements and a requirement that defects alleged in class action lawsuits by material. Just as the other bills do, my bill rewards companies that have taken steps to become Y2K compliant by allowing for a reasonable balance between proportionate liability and joint and several liability. While I strongly believe that a Y2K liability bill is necessary, I have great concerns about this Y2K liability bill in its present form. No one wants to see a solution to this problem more than I do, but I am not willing to compromise efforts to solve the Y2K problem to satisfy unrelated interests, nor am I willing to trade in the Y2K problem only to get a litigation problem down the road. While we are rushing to solve the Y2K problem and the policy issues therein, we should above all strive to enter the next century with a sense of vision, and this vision should include a prudent analysis of the looming challenges of potential Y2K litigation. I assure you that no one wants to begin the next millennium by trading a vision of the future for a subpoena.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I would just like to have a few short minutes to speak on the bill, on the Ed-Flex bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Virginia and others who I know have spoken this morning in the Chamber about the tragic and unbelievable events in Littleton, CO. I can't help but observe that the Presiding Officer has more than just a passing familiarity with this kind of tragedy, in that in his own State we saw a similar situation. It has occurred in other States around the country as well. Crime rates are coming down all across the Nation. So many positive things seem to be happening with new policing, community policing, efforts being made all across the board. That we still find what appears to be an increase in this kind of crime is confounding and sort of cries out for us to be thinking harder about how we can deal with these situations. I, too, want to add my voice in expression of sorrow to the families in the community of Littleton, CO. We have to do more than just grieve and talk about our kids, their education, the day after these tragedies. That is certainly appropriate. But we must talk about them and try to come up with some answers the day before and the day before that so that we minimize these kinds of incredible circumstances from occurring. If we are going to be responsive to the needs of our young people and the educational needs of Americans, then we have to invest our time and energy in healing whatever has gone so terribly wrong in the lives of these youth who allegedly were responsible for these events, even though we don't know in total what has occurred there, or we are going to be revisiting these kinds of stories all too frequently. With that, Mr. President, I am pleased to stand in the Chamber today and add my voice of support to this conference report on the Ed-Flex bill. The concerns of children and education are not going to be entirely solved by this legislation, but I think it is a positive step forward. I am pleased to support the legislation, the education flexibility partnership bill, as it is called. I compliment Senators Frist of Tennessee and Wyden of Oregon who sponsored the legislation and have been involved as forceful advocates for it. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Kennedy, who played a very important role in trying to strengthen the legislation and have worked hard to improve the bill in this bipartisan effort. The conference report before us reauthorizes and expands the existing education flexibility demonstration program to all eligible States. We first enacted Ed-Flex in 1994 as part of the Goals 2000 legislation. Since that time, 12 States have been selected to participate. With the Ed-Flex authority, States can waive Federal statutory and regulatory requirements in several key elementary and secondary education programs where those requirements impede local efforts to improve schools. That was the idea, test this out. Although few States have used this authority broadly and results are still being compiled, reports from the States suggest that this authority is making a difference. State officials report Ed-Flex has changed the climate of school reform in their States. It has led to far more innovation. Texas, which has been the only State to use this authority broadly--and I commend them for it--and to gather achievement data has shown impressive student achievement increases among all groups of students. While each State is different, and certainly Texas would be the first to tell you how different they are, when it comes to education, particularly elementary and secondary education, the lessons learned in Texas, I think, could be very helpful to all of us regardless of which section of the country we are from. Clearly there is potential in Ed-Flex, and I am hopeful that the expansion we are enacting today will lead to more and better innovations in our States to improve schools. I am very pleased that the final legislation before us today includes several provisions which I believe will lead the States to use this authority more and to use it appropriately to improve the performance of our schools. I am particularly pleased that language Senator Kennedy and I offered, improving the link between flexibility and accountability for student performance, is retained. Senator Reed of Rhode Island's language on community and parental involvement in the process of applying for these waivers will, I believe, result in much stronger applications. In addition, I believe the provisions protecting the targeting Federal dollars to the neediest students, offered by our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, who fought tirelessly on behalf of that provision to see to it that the neediest of our students would certainly be the principal beneficiaries of his program. He worked, I know, with Congressman George Miller of California on this, who has a deep interest in this subject matter and is very knowledgeable about these issues as well. I commend them for their efforts. This will ensure that States and local communities continue to serve, as I said, the neediest of our population. Finally, and most importantly, I am pleased that the conference committee preserved our commitment to lowering class size by removing the divisive language that pitted class size reduction against funding for special education. However, even with these changes, I believe the measure before us is a modest one--a good one but a modest one. I view it as a first step, if only a modest one, in the direction of stronger education policy. I am very hopeful that we can now move onto bigger education issues. Not to belittle the importance some have placed on education flexibility, but I have never had one parent, one teacher, or one student raise this issue with me. But I have had many, many parents, students, and teachers concerned about class size. I have had school districts looking for reassurance that the full promise of 100,000 teachers will reach them. I have had many parents and teachers and students concerned about the overcrowding and the overall condition of schools in my State and across the country. I have had numerous inquiries about the safety of children in school, and obviously the events in Littleton, CO, punctuate that concern, but it is one that all of us hear every day, regardless of what State we are from. As well, Mr. President, parents and teachers and students raise concerns about how many children start school not ready to learn. Many students go home to empty houses without supervision or the enrichment of afterschool programs. That issue is raised by parents who have young children all the time. Lastly, they raise concerns that the needs in our schools outpace the Federal funding in this crucial area. We must move to these pressing issues as well. Ed-Flex can make a difference in some States, but it cannot substitute for real education policy, broad policy. I look forward to building on the success of this bill and looking for the kinds of bipartisanship that created this legislation, and to assist in coming up with some answers that will make a difference on class size, school safety, afterschool programs, and condition of school buildings, which also must be a critical part--each one--of improving the quality of education and preparing this new generation of Americans to be the kind of leaders we all want them to be in the coming century. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for allowing me to express my views. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is somewhat appropriate, I say to my friend and colleague from Connecticut, that the Presiding Officer is from Ohio. But for Ohio, we would not have made it to the Final Four, the final game. This is a moment of great joy for my colleague and I and for the people of Connecticut. We express our condolences to the delegation from North Carolina, the home of Duke University. It is a fine university with a fine basketball team that led the Nation ranked number one for a good part of the season. But, unfortunately, on that night of March 29 in St. Petersburg, FL, the Blue Devils met the Husky team from Connecticut in what many have described as one of the best national championship finals in collegiate basketball history. Ultimately, our team from the University of Connecticut prevailed. To say that there is a great sense of pride in Connecticut and enthusiasm and joy over this victory is to understate the case by a considerable margin. We are a State that, over many years, has had to export our allegiances in athletics. We have had a hockey team and a women's professional basketball team, both of which have left our State. There is a good possibility we will be the home of the New England Patriots in the not- too-distant future. In the meantime, it has been our men and women's basketball teams at UCONN that have captured the attention of everybody in our State, and I might say, as well, beyond our State's borders. I think a good part of the Nation was rooting for this 9\1/2\ point underdog on March 29 as they prevailed in this great victory. I want to mention a couple of people if I can. First of all is Jim Calhoun, the Head Coach of the UCONN men's basketball team. He has been with the team for 13 years and has had a wonderful, wonderful record, including capturing the 1988 NIT title and appearing in six ``Sweet 16's,'' and three ``Elite 8" rounds. And he has now led the team to victory in the national championship. He is not only a outstanding coach, but also a wonderful human being with great dedication to his team, his players, the university, and our State. As well, his coaching staff is a fine group of people who have also dedicated so much energy and time to making this team the success it has been. I would also like to mention some of our UCONN players and commend a couple of the fine athletes who made such significant contributions in the championship game. Our sophomore guard is Khalid El-Amin. We thank the State of Minnesota because he was a native and decided to make the University of Connecticut his home for basketball purposes. He has been a sparkplug for our team and has done a tremendous job. As many will recall, he made two free throws in that final game with only 5.2 seconds left, which absolutely iced the victory for UCONN. Richard Hamilton has become one of the great players in collegiate history. He was the Most Valuable Player of the NCAA tournament, the Most Valuable Player in the Big East tournament this year, and is truly one of the great, great players not only at the University of Connecticut, but also throughout the Nation. Other players like Ricky Moore, Kevin Freeman, and Jake Voskuhl did a great job as well, all contributing when it counted most. Moore and Freeman, I think, deserve special recognition for proving that defense is valuable. It is not just who can score the most points, but who can be a great defensive player. Both of them did a terrific job in proving the value of that element of this wonderful, unique game now played worldwide. Basketball is a game that began in Springfield, MA, something that we in America take pride in as it is a sport that is home-grown. Lastly, Mr. President, the fans, the student body, the administration, Phillip Austin, President of the university, the Board of Trustees, and the faithful alumni were all in that arena to watch the Ohio State game, and then the final game on Monday. They were both great games. I know the former Governor of that State, the occupant of the Chair, takes great pride in Ohio State. The coach of your team was an assistant coach at the University of Connecticut. He was in Florida and rooting for Connecticut, I can tell you, during that final game. I am sure he would have liked to have been coaching that game instead, but despite not being there himself, and given his former relationship with the University of Connecticut, it is understandable how he felt a special affection for the UCONN team. Again, Mr. President, as I began, let me end. This was a great moment for our State. The people are very proud of the accomplishments of this team and our university. Senator Lieberman and I wanted to take a moment out of the Senate business to recognize the accomplishments of these fine young men of the University of Connecticut and thank the people of our State who have so faithfully supported them throughout these many years. Mr. President, at this time I would like to recognize all the coaches and players of the 1999 NCAA Men's Basketball Championship team: Head Coach Jim Calhoun, Associate Head Coach Dave Leitao, Assistant Coach Karl Hobbs, Assistant Coach Tom Moore, Beau Archibald, Justin Brown, Khalid El-Amin, Kevin Freeman, Richard Hamilton, E.J. Harrison, Rashamel Jones, Antric Klaiber, Ricky Moore, Albert Mouring, Edmund Saunders, Souleymane Wane, and Jake Voskuhl. With that, I yield to my colleague, an equally fervent champion and fan of the UCONN team.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, I send to the desk S. Res. 77 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I can have the floor for just a second, because I don't know who has the time to yield to me?

Mr. DODD. Thanks. I appreciate that.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from New Mexico on the child care effort. There was obviously, strong bipartisan support for this measure. As the Senator points out, as is normally the case, you do not get everything you want, but it is a major bipartisan step forward and will make a lot of difference in people's lives. We had to fight very hard and there was a lot of objection on the other side. Without his efforts, it would not have happened. I also thank Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Hatch and the many others who deserve to share the credit for achieving this result, but I particularly want to thank my colleague from New Mexico and my colleague from New Jersey, who has obviously been a champion of all this for a long time. I thank them for their efforts to make a difference in the lives of working families who struggle to find safe and affordable child care.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If the leader would yield further, I appreciate him showing some patience here. This is, I think, a very good idea. By the way, I am a cosponsor of the proposal here to do this for our service men and women. I had the pleasure of being with a group of them last Friday and Saturday at Ramstein Air Force Base and flew with a crew on a C-130, a 4-hour flight from Germany down to Macedonia. And they were terrific young men and women. In the cockpit were men and women. The navigator was a woman. There were two pilots, the engineers, the crew.

Mr. DODD. I think most of us are cosponsors.

Mr. DODD. You just hit it right on the head.

Mr. DODD. Other than that, I have been asked, on behalf of someone, to raise an objection. I prefer they were here to make their case if that is what they want to do. So if maybe we can wait 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. These are permanent, regular Army and Air Force people.

Mr. DODD. Will the leader yield to me on that point?

Mr. DODD. They do a fabulous job. And I think it is one way of saying to them how much we appreciate what they are doing. I guess by executive order, I gather, the President has issued some orders on this as well.

Mr. DODD. Can I make a suggestion? There is one Member, I think, who has some questions they may want to raise--let me put it in those terms--before you propound it. I would personally prefer if you could hold up for a couple minutes until they get here. Maybe we can work something out with them.

Mr. DODD. Before you do that----