Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I think the Senator means the D'Amato amendment, at the conclusion of the vote on the D'Amato amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that I use, say, 5 minutes and be notified when 5 minutes have transpired so that the author of the amendment has some additional time at the end to conclude his remarks. Mr. President, there is little question that the surcharges seem to have become the No. 1 complaint by many consumers and consumer groups all across the Nation. Part of the reason for the increasing complaints in this area is the speed with which the surcharges have become attached to the ATM machines. Frankly, I say to the Chair, and my colleagues, I was not an early supporter of the prohibition of these fees. When it was first proposed by the Senator from New York, I argued that we ought to let the market dictate how these fees would be set, convinced, as had happened with the credit card issue, that competition within the marketplace actually had the desired effect of creating a good level, a less decent level, and an understandable and rational level for fees and surcharges and grace periods, and the like, when it comes to credit cards. It was my hope that would occur here with the ATM issue. The problem is that it just hasn't happened at all. We have had the opposite effect, in fact. Banks seem to have become more interested in acting like sort of an electronic Jesse James--taking their cut when the consumer wants to get access to their money. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office puts this a little more seriously in their study, noting: Paradoxically, the increase in supply of ATM machines has not led to the kind of reduction that would generally follow from supply and demand solutions. This is the Congressional Budget Office testimony. My concern over the practice of surcharging was augmented by some other developments as well. First was the decision by a major national bank to sue the State of Connecticut, my home State, to overturn my State's ban on surcharges. This demonstrated to me that the banking industry was unwilling to allow the individual States to make their own public policy decisions about this practice. As a result, it has become very clear that only Federal legislation would allow my State of Connecticut to maintain the protections for its citizens that it has chosen to enact. In fact, the attorney general of my State, Richard Blumenthal, came to Washington and testified strongly in favor of the D'Amato amendment. Let me quote him. He said: Federal legislation is vitally necessary to clarify our State's ability [a State rights issue] to enact such a prohibition. In addition, Federal legislation is necessary to ensure that consumers are protected from such fees whenever they use an ATM. Also, let me note that despite Connecticut's ATM surcharge ban, the largest bank in my State announced, on July 14, that it was going to close some branches and open more ATMs around the State. The results rebut the argument that banks won't open new ATMs if this amendment passes. This is a living example where you have a ban, a moratorium on any new surcharges, and, yet, they are expanding the ATMs in my State. So, clearly this ban, this legislation that is being offered by the Senator from New York, would not produce the results that its opponents are claiming. Second, community banks in my State have expressed deep concerns that ATM surcharging could be used to give large banks with extensive proprietary networks an unfair advantage over community banks with fewer machines. Smaller banks are worried about this--not only consumers, but smaller banks are. This is particularly troublesome because of the regulatory and legislative decisions that allow banks to use the ATMs in the first place where, based upon the concept of universal access to the network, the large banks are reneging on that commitment. That is how they got this in the first place. This was going to be universal access. They have basically backed off that commitment. Lastly, I have become very concerned over changes in bank underwriting standards for commercial loans and for credit card companies, which I have raised before and which was the subject of a front page Washington Post article today. It is a great concern where you have now these normal banking fees being replaced by surcharges and the like as a way of offsetting lowering the standards for credit. This ought to be a great concern of all of us. And the Washington Post article highlights this. You can lower your standard on credit card allocation, because you can make up whatever the losses would be in this area. I think putting this issue aside is a very dangerous road for us to be going. As I reviewed the materials in preparation for the Banking Committee hearing, I couldn't help but be struck by the fact that loan standards and credit card underwriting standards have slipped as revenues from fees, which are almost pure profit, have escalated. I can't help but wonder whether the profit from these fees--$3 billion in ATM fees and $1.1 billion from fees charged their own customers when someone else bounces a check--aren't giving bank officials a false sense of security about their lending practices. If true, then this may be the most corrosive effect aspect of the recent boom in consumer banking fees of all types. For those reasons, Mr. President, I believe the D'Amato amendment deserves to be adopted by this body. I urge my colleagues to do so. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and to inquire of the managing Member, there would be no second-degree amendments.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendment of the Senator from New York?

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I would like 2 or 3 minutes on the D'Amato amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I notify the managing Member that it is the amendment on the credit card age limit.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the efforts recently made by the U.S. National Commission on Libraries to mobilize resources for the purpose of curbing youth violence in this nation. Youth violence in America is, undeniably, a serious and frightening problem today. The recent string of highly publicized school shootings has made this all too clear; over the last ten months, 15 people have died and 42 have been wounded. This terrifying epidemic has spread across the country--from Mississippi to Pennsylvania to Washington. As a result, cities such as Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Springfield, Oregon, will remain burned in the public mind, forever associated with terror, heartbreak, and inexplicable tragedy. When faced with the all too horrifying reality of children killing children, teachers, even parents, the nation is shaken to its core, as common associations of youth and innocence are violently broken. Citizens are left to mourn and to ask the inevitable question: Why? But wondering why is not enough. Innovative action is required if future tragedies are to be prevented. And the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is leading the way, having committed itself to just such action. The Commission is a permanent, independent agency of the federal government charged by Congress to advise the President and the Congress on national and international library and information policies and plans. On July 8, 1998, the members of the Commission unanimously approved a resolution that urges all of society--community officials, educators, parents, role models-- to support efforts made by libraries to assist adults, youth, and children in finding, through valuable learning resources and experiences, solutions to this outbreak of violence. The Commission's recognition of the important and constructive role libraries can play in the lives of America's children is commendable. It is commitment like this that may help to curb the terrifying tide of violence--both in the school and in the home. Mr. President, I ask that the Resolution of the Commission be printed in the Record and serve as a model to all of us and our community organizations as we struggle to come to terms with violence among our youth. The Resolution follows: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science Resolution in Recognition of the Important Role of Libraries in the Lives of American Children WHEREAS we have seen the recent outbreak of children venting rage and anger by killing parents, teachers and schoolmates, WHEREAS we know that mental development, positive socialization and emotional stabilization must begin at birth if children are to grow up with full success, WHEREAS we are concerned about the needs of tens of thousands of young persons now in corrections or on probation who may return to destructive behaviors if they receive no redirection, Be it Resolved That the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science urges that our society-- officials and educators at all levels, community leaders, parents and other adult caregivers, confidantes and role models--utilize the vast potential of libraries and support the current and potential abilities and efforts of librarians in assisting adults, youth and children to seek positive outcomes through wise use of information, and Be it Further Resolved: That, in seeking solutions through better parenting and learning experiences for young children and redirection for troubled older children and adolescents, libraries can be a major delivery point.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I come to the Senate floor to pay tribute to a man of uncommon character and faith, whom I am fortunate to call a friend: Monsignor Henry J. Dziadosz. For almost three decades, Monsignor Dziadosz has served as the Pastor at St. Bridget's of Kildare Church in Moodus, Connecticut, of which I am a member. And for half a century, he has inspired countless people through his works as a Catholic Priest in Connecticut. After his many years of service and guidance, Monsignor Dziadosz is retiring, and I wish to offer my praise for the Monsignor on this special occasion. Monsignor Dziadosz is a spiritual father for the parishioners of St. Bridget's, and he has overseen the transformation of the church--both physically and spiritually. On Easter Sunday, 1971, two years after being named the Pastor, he announced the proposed restoration and renovation of the congregation's original church: Old St. Bridget's on North Moodus Road. The church had been the home of Catholic worshipers from 1867 to 1958, and Monsignor believed that its preservation would serve as a monument to the perseverance of its parishioners. With the help of many volunteers, the old church was dedicated on Memorial Day 1971, and the renovation was known as the ``Miracle of Moodus.'' He also oversaw the construction of an outdoor pavilion at the church in 1976. And in a show of the Monsignor's dedication to the improvement of religious education, the church opened its Religious Education Center in 1983. But the true impact that Monsignor Dziadosz had on St. Bridget's parish is not measured in mortar and brick, it is measured in the spirit of the congregation. Monsignor has always said that one of his goals at the church was to create a spirit of community where no member of the parish would ever feel alone, either in times of despair or happiness. He knows that we all face challenges in our life, and when we support one another we can work through our difficulties and overcome them. Through his hard work and dedication, he was able to create such a spirit of togetherness at St. Bridget's, and for that, I and many others are thankful. He brought an energetic approach to the church, and he was not afraid to challenge convention in order to do what he felt was best for the congregation. He always taught the virtues of tolerance and worked to break down barriers and bring people together. He also challenged people to ask more from themselves and to show more concern and compassion for those persons in the community and the world who are less fortunate. He also felt that St. Bridget's should not only serve the parish, but the community at large. He opened the doors of the church for members of local protestant delegations to hold their worship services. He also allowed senior groups and other organizations to use church facilities. He even had a generator installed on the church premises so that the church may serve as a haven in case of emergencies or natural disasters. In addition, he singlehandedly raised $50,000 for the construction of a chapel and convent for the cloistered Carmelite sisters of Roxas City, the Philippines, proving that his compassion and concern for others extends far beyond any physical borders. On the occasion of his retirement, I think it is appropriate to look back at some of the words that Monsignor Dziadosz spoke at the time that the parish celebrated his 25th year at St. Bridget's. He said, ``We can never say we've done it, we've reached our goal.'' In certain respects he's right, because life is an ongoing process, and our goals are constantly changing. But, in the end, I think that anyone who knows Monsignor Dziadosz would say that he's wrong. Monsignor Dziadosz not only reached his goals, he exceeded them. His retirement is a time of great loss for the parish, but more important, it is a time for celebration. His words and actions have been a source of inspiration and strength for countless individuals through the years, and his guidance will be dearly missed. On behalf of the people of St. Bridget's and the people of Connecticut, I say thank you Monsignor, and may God bless you.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to conclude my remarks here. The Kennedy assassination language was a process for declassification. It wasn't necessarily through an application process that we are talking about this amendment. There is a distinction in that regard. Secondly, regardless of where a bona fide request comes from for declassification, if it is a bona fide request, whether it is made by a U.S. citizen or a non-U.S. citizen, there is nowhere I know of in there that says somebody is precluded from making the request because they are a non-U.S. citizen, as long as we protect the legitimate source. I point out that most of the other agencies effectively had no difficulty with this. The reason we are requesting this amendment is because we have had a problem with one or two agencies; where they have provided information, it is blank page after blank page, redacted page after redacted page. Again, I think on the issue of human rights, certainly we have seen in cases where we wanted to get to the bottom of information involving U.S. citizens, that it is hard enough with some of these countries to get the cooperation in the country themselves to get information. It is a rather ominous thought that a U.S. citizen, or others seeking to get information about why they were murdered or brutalized, that they would face the kind of false obstruction from their own country. So, in the case of Honduras and Guatemala, we felt, particularly where these cases involved--particularly the case of Sister Ortiz--an American nun who was raped and tortured in that country, that helping her provide some information to get to the bottom of her case here goes back to 1989--with all of the safeguards included specifically in this amendment is a modest request, indeed, for us to be able to meet. I hope when the appropriate motion is made and the yeas and nays are asked on this that my colleagues would support us in adopting this amendment. Again, I thank my colleague from Utah for his graciousness.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his remarks. Certainly, I would hope that additional funds could be found to supplement the FY 1999 Peace Corps budget if at all possible. As my colleagues know, the Peace Corps is a very personal matter for me as I served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Dominican Republic. This was a very worthwhile experience for me personally. I know that our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, also has very personal feelings with respect to the Peace Corps having served as a Peace Corps Director before being elected to the Senate.

Mr. DODD. I thank the President. Mr. President, let me thank, again, the distinguished manager of the underlying bill. This has been a disjointed debate. We have had several intervening matters since I first offered the amendment a couple of hours ago, almost 3 hours ago. So I will just revisit the purpose of the amendment, what it does. Mr. President, I listened and had a chance to hear some brief comments by the Senator from Alabama, and now the Senator from Arizona on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor, as well, to this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what this amendment does is it involves two countries--Honduras and Guatemala. As most of my colleagues are aware, in these two countries we were deeply involved for about a decade. And actually conflict went on for some time longer than that where literally thousands of people lost their lives. We as a country were deeply involved in it. There were divisions here in the United States over that level of involvement, that type of involvement. We are not here today to revisit the conflict in Central America of the 1980s. There have been pending requests in both of these two situations involving Honduras and Guatemala going back 3 or 4 years, requesting information and documentation involving some very significant and severe human rights violations. I identified one earlier involving an American citizen who was raped and brutally tortured in Guatemala. Her case has never been resolved. She would like to have it resolved. Sister Ortiz with the Carmelite Order of Nuns would very much like to get to the bottom of it. I think all of us can understand that if that happened to anyone we knew. As an American citizen, she would like to find out what happened. How do you do that when you are trying to declassify information? What this amendment does in both the case of Honduras and Guatemala, there is a request for declassification, which we provide for all the time, but in these particular cases, if the agency, whatever it may be, is unwilling for very important reasons to declassify everything, that there would be an opportunity for a panel--and we have done this before; this is not unprecedented--made up of people from the CIA, the Justice Department, the Department of Defense, the State Department and others, that would review the request and if, in fact, they felt that the request for certain information would violate existing law, methods, resources, procedures, personnel and so forth--then they would deny the request. If they think it is OK, despite the agency's objection--and that is not too big a surprise to us that the agency historically takes the position of being opposed to declassification of any documents; that is not new at all. That has been their reaction. As I showed my colleagues, we have blank page after blank page when asking for documentation. That is a request, and we have one entire blank page. You are trying to get to the bottom of a case involving an American citizen or other people where human rights violations occur. This should not be that controversial. I would not ask that just anyone be able to have access to documents or the declassification without going through a process here to determine whether or not any of that information could be harmful to our own country. But it seems to me when a citizen has been hurt, when others who make legitimate requests and don't get to the bottom of information, and we can help by providing information through a declassification process, in two very specific cases here, these two countries, this ought not to be too much to ask. It is not costly; it need not go on long. The notion somehow that a non-U.S. citizen may request this information, that somehow this is unprecedented, that is not unprecedented. Many people all over the world request information. It doesn't mean they automatically get it. With all due respect to my colleagues, I point out that Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is a cosponsor of this amendment. We have talked about a number of other cases. Michael DeVine, American citizen, murdered in Guatemala by the Guatemalan military. It was covered up for years. We are trying to get to the bottom of it. Is it wrong for American citizens not to be able to request declassification of material that might shed light on who brutalized them or murdered them? We can go through a very legitimate process where we can examine whether or not that information ought to be declassified. If a determination is made that it can be, then we can release it to help get to the bottom of that. The administration has already, by Executive order, said it has no problem with this in terms of getting to a declassification, but we want to have an orderly process. This amendment, and I do not claim perfection, this amendment is an effort here to try to do it in an orderly way, to say that you can make your application; that if the respective agency has a problem with a request, there is a way of evaluating whether or not that information ought to be forthcoming, and not just a panel made up of anybody but people who come from the various agencies that I think people would be concerned about. I was hoping the amendment would just be agreed to here, that this, again, shouldn't rise to the level of a major concern. In the case of Sister Ortiz, I don't think it is outrageous to make this request. Ambassador Stroock, who was the Ambassador in Guatemala appointed by President Bush, supports this amendment. I am told now by our colleague, Craig Thomas, who spoke on behalf of this amendment, from Wyoming, that he believes, in fact the declassification would help put this matter to rest once and for all. My view is people can overreact on these matters here when it comes to this kind of information, but we have heard and know of other cases of American citizens overseas where their lives have been threatened. In the case of Sister Ortiz, a rape and torture. In the case of Michael DeVine, murdered. I don't think it is outrageous for this body to provide a procedure and a mechanism whereby people can find out, through an orderly and proper process of declassification, information that might lead to those who are responsible for it. I hope we would be able to support an amendment that would adopt a process that is orderly and one that will, I hope, assist these people. There may not be anything in this information. Some have suggested there is not a lot of information in some of these cases. If that is the case, there is less reason to be opposed to it. In two specific cases here, if there is some information, and it helped to get to the bottom of it, I think we could all have a sense of pride that we contributed to that. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, and myself in adopting this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me respond to the Senator from Vermont. I thank him for his support on this. In this amendment, we took Public Law 102-526, section VI, entitled ``Grounds for Postponement of Public Disclosure of Records.'' This is the so-called ``Kennedy assassination'' language. What I did is I took the exact language--all of the language, which provides the exemptions of where this information should not be provided, and I took the word ``assassination'' and replaced it with the words ``human rights.'' Here is an example. Reading from the existing law: Disclosure of assassination records and of particular information to the public may be postponed subject to the limitations of the act. We write: Disclosure of human rights records. 1. Threat of military defense intelligence, conduct, foreign relations, and so forth. Intelligence agents, intelligence sources, and other matters currently related to the military defense. All the way down this entire language, all we did is replace the words ``human rights'' for ``assassinations'' when it comes to Honduras and Guatemala. We added an additional provision that is not in the Kennedy assassination statute. In addition, the amendment provides that ``a document may remain classified if its public disclosure would be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source.'' So we even add to it here. I say to my colleague from Vermont that we virtually stick to existing law. We provide that if in fact there has been a rejection here by the Agency, then a panel made up of representatives of the Department of Justice, the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and Department of Defense can review, over a 30-day period, that request to determine whether or not the sustained declassification is warranted. If they conclude it is not, then it could be declassified so that we can get the information out. Other than that, we follow exactly the Kennedy assassination language, with the exception that we add a provision that is not in the law. It even goes further. I always thought it was not a matter of great debate here about whether or not human rights--something we cherish, something we talk about all the time. My Lord, we have provided sanctions on countries all over the world that deprive people of basic human rights. Are we saying, in the case of Honduras and Guatemala where there are huge human rights violations, that we are not going to make an effort to get to the bottom of this, where particularly American citizens' rights were deprived, where they were brutalized? I don't understand that.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for 37 years now, the Peace Corps has been promoting international peace and friendship through the service abroad of American volunteers. More than 150,000 Americans from every background have served in the Peace Corps in 132 countries. Right now, more than 6,500 peace Corps Volunteers are living and working alongside local people in 84 countries. The Peace Corps is a model of citizen service on international scale and a model of American leadership in the world. In their engagement abroad, American Peace Corps Volunteers share and represent the culture and values of the American people, while living and working alongside local people, and speaking the local language. In doing so, they earn respect and admiration for our country. This is a different type of American Leadership and an important complement to our formal U.S. foreign policy. From the day of its establishment, the Peace Corps has seen strong by-partisan support for its programs. I regret that this year the subcommittee has not been able to fund the Peace Corps at the administrations full request. However, I do understand the difficult budgetary constraints facing the subcommittee this year.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I inform my colleagues I know there are other Members who want to be heard on this amendment, and I certainly would not ask for a vote on this amendment until other Members have had a chance to be on it. Specifically, my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and possibly others, will speak in opposition, I am told, to this amendment. I will not make an attempt to have the amendment disposed of until they have had an opportunity to be heard. Amendment No. 3527 (Purpose: Establish a procedure for the declassification of information pertaining to Guatemala and Honduras)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have brief remarks about this amendment. It is focused on two countries, Guatemala and Honduras. It is not worldwide. It is designed to try to have documents declassified, dating back to a decade ago. Many people recall the tragedies of the conflict in Central America. It actually goes back more than two decades. In the case of Guatemala, it goes back 30 or 40 years. Civil wars have now been concluded. There are democratically led governments moving in a direction to try to address their underlying economic and social needs. The conflict that plagued these countries and ourselves cost the lives of thousands of people, as well as thousands more who were injured and brutalized in those conflicts. We are seeking with this amendment to declassify certain information that might allow us, in the case particularly of an American citizen who was brutalized in that conflict almost a decade ago, to gather necessary information so that those who perpetrated the crimes against her could be brought to the bar of justice. The Clinton administration has already agreed in principle to assist the Guatemalan and Honduran authorities investigating past human rights abuses that occurred during this period. These investigations are critical to these societies being able to complete the process of reconciliation and establish a credible foundation on which to build democratic institutions which truly reflect the rule of law and to put an end to impunity. While some U.S. agencies have already responded very fully and positively to these requests, others appear to have done little or nothing meaningful to review and turn over materials that could be critical to the success of this exercise. The slowness of certain agencies in the production of materials, in some cases which are totally nonresponsive to these requests, have caused a level of cynicism about the commitment of some agencies to fully support this effort. I know my colleagues, Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell, are very familiar with the case of the American citizen, Sister Diana Ortiz, who was abducted and brutally raped and tortured while serving in a rural community in Guatemala in 1989. Not surprisingly, Sister Ortiz's life has never been the same. Her efforts to shed light on the details of the crimes against her have been met with indifference, at best. As is too often the case in rape cases, she believes that rather than being viewed as the victim, she has been treated by certain government officials as a perpetrator of some crime or involved in nefarious behavior. I don't think the 101 cigarette burns on her back would indicate necessarily at all that someone was the perpetrator rather than the victim. Just today, I received a very moving letter from Sister Ortiz. Attached to her letter was a statement that she recently gave laying out some of the new information about her case. Let me quote from her letter, because I think it helps explain why I am offering this amendment today. Sister Ortiz writes: Despite my efforts, I still don't know the truth of why I was abducted and tortured. It is true that government agencies have released documents to me. They consist of such public items as articles written by the press, human rights reports from the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, documents relating to cases other than my own, and letters written to Members of Congress. I have also received blank sheets of white paper. Mr. President, this is not just some isolated document. This is basically what a lot of the released documents look like here. This is declassified human rights documents, blank pages: ``Honduran armed services human rights and corruption.'' A blank page. Here is another example of the declassified documents released on her case: A U.S. ally has received U.S. Embassy and Honduran government support. It goes on. That has little or nothing to do with the situation involving Sister Ortiz. The rest is blank. This is one of the released documents: Press reports of January 1988 indicate that the 316 battalion was deactivated in September 1987 to quell speculation following allegations of death squad activities made against the battalion. The rest is blank, as if this were some highly pertinent document. This is obviously not readable here at all. For the purpose of demonstrating to my colleagues, here is what we are talking about. I could go through this quickly. These are all blank pages. I am not filling these in. These are sheets of blank pages that come up on this report. Now, obviously, there are legitimate concerns that intelligence agencies can have about just releasing any and all documents that people would like to have access to. You can't tolerate that, even in a case as moving as that of Sister Ortiz. This amendment says that within 120 days of enactment of the underlying bill it would search the documents for relevant material in Honduras and Guatemala if documents are discovered and found, and the agencies, for whatever reasons--there are a list of reasons--adopted in law where methods and sources could be revealed and other important information that could be harmful to U.S. interests. Then there is a panel made up of representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Archivist of the United States and the Justice Department, which would review that request from the agency objecting to the release of certain documents. So there is a system whereby they would review whether or not, in fact, the decision not to release information was worthwhile. So there is a process in place here. It is not worldwide. It is, in fact, situations surrounding these two countries. It involves an American citizen who was brutally tortured and would like to get to the bottom of what happened to her--an American nun working in Honduras and in Guatemala doing work that she and others felt made a significant contribution to the well-being of people there. She would like to find out why it happened. It is not asking too much, in the case of these two countries, for the declassification of documents which could help her pursue this case, again, allowing for a very legitimate process to be in place so that there is not the unintentional release of documents that could in some way compromise the interests of the United States. That is the sum and substance of this amendment, Mr. President. I hope that our colleagues will see fit to be supportive of it. It doesn't go too far, in my view. As I said, it is limited in scope, in terms of the countries involved, and also there is a process in place in this amendment that would allow for the information, in cases where it should not be released, to be withheld. I also point out, Mr. President, that I am particularly grateful to my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Kerry of Massachusetts and Kerrey of Nebraska, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is a cosponsor of this amendment, along with Senator Harkin and several others who have joined with me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from Sister Ortiz, as well as the very moving testimony that she gave on June 25, 1998, be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I defer to the managers to make a proper motion to temporarily set aside the McCain amendment for the purposes of offering and debating at this point my amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I have an amendment I would like to offer. If my colleague from Arizona has completed his debate on this, I would ask----

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Kentucky very, very much for his courtesies in this, and my colleagues, as well, who have other amendments pending. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, at the request of the managers of the bill, at this point, I will yield the floor. I presume what will happen is that there are other Members who may show up to debate the McCain amendment, and then there would be a vote on that, and then there may be another amendment that would be disposed of. If I could be notified by my staff, or others, as to when the appropriate time to come back and engage in a further debate with those who have a differing point of view, I am happy to do that.