Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offered the second-degree amendment and it doesn't substantially change the original amendment, but it is so that we can have an up-or-down vote on the substance of the amendment I offered on behalf of myself, my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, Senator Daschle, Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, Senator Cochran, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Hutchison, Senator Hagel, Senator Warner, and Senator Inouye. Mr. President, we believe that the approach contained in this amendment will lead to a far more cooperative and effective effort to meet the international threat posed by the international drug trafficking that is occurring in our country and elsewhere around the globe. The pending amendment calls upon the President of the United States to establish a high-level interdisciplinary task force, under the direction of General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the supply and demand side of the drug problem. This amendment also urges the President of the United States to encourage other drug-producing, and transit countries to undertake similar efforts. Within a year's time, it calls for an international summit to be held, at which time the efforts of all of the parties would be merged into a multilateral battle plan to engage the illegal drug trade on every front. In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual respect that must be present if this effort is to produce the results all of us desire, our amendment would also temporarily suspend, for 2 years, the annual drug certification procedure while efforts are ongoing to develop and implement a new strategy. It does not repeal the certification process, but suspends it for 2 years in order to try this new dynamic. Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, supports this amendment, as does the administration. As you know, the issue of how best to construct and implement an effective counternarcotics policy has been the subject of much debate in this Chamber and, I add, much disagreement over the years. Our intention in offering this amendment today is to try and see if there isn't some way to end what has become a stale annual event, an event that has not brought us one step closer to mounting a credible effort to eliminate or even contain the international drug Mafia. We all can agree that drugs are a huge problem and a growing problem. Illegal drugs aren't some theoretical abstraction that only concerns Members of Congress. Most American families know --many firsthand, unfortunately--the dangers inherent in the drug trade. They worry about their children, their schools, their streets, and their communities. They know only too well the impact that unfettered drug gangs can have on them, their families, and the towns in which they live. We can all agree here, Mr. President, that there is an important international component to the drug menace. Drug kingpins have no respect for international borders. They ply their trade clandestinely wherever the opportunities may arise. The international drug trade poses a direct threat, I argue, to the United States as a government here at home, and to international efforts to promote democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the globe; but most especially, I think, here in our own hemisphere. Mr. President, I have concerns about the international implications of the drug trade. Of even greater concern to me personally are the effects it is having here in the United States. Today, approximately 12.8 million Americans use illegal drugs, including 1.5 million cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, and 9.8 million people who have used marijuana. This menace isn't just confined to our inner cities or the poor. Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group in this country. The human and economic costs are enormous and staggering. Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost our Government and the taxpayers of this Nation approximately $67 billion in 1996, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration. The drug trade is an enormously lucrative business. Drug trafficking generates estimated revenues of $400 billion annually. Although often left unstated, it is United States' demands for these illegal drugs which has been a driving force making drug trafficking the incredibly lucrative enterprise it has become. The principal focus of the U.S. international counternarcotics efforts has been to endeavor to go to the source, to penetrate the narcotrafficking organizations that control the production and distribution of drugs, and to dismantle them. An important component of that international effort since 1986 has also included as its centerpiece the so called ``annual certification process.'' Mr. President, I commend those who authored the certification process. Their intent, as is the intent of us who offer this amendment, is the same; that is, to try and figure out a way to slow down this traffic that pours into our country. Mr. President, I respectfully suggest that, after 10 years, the certification process has not helped. Therefore, we are trying, through this amendment, a new process by which we might, hopefully, change the dynamic and reverse the present trends that continue upward. The United States has spent more than $25 billion since 1981 for foreign interdictions and source country counternarcotics projects, and has been issuing an annual certification report card since 1986. Yet, despite these efforts, seizures at the borders, from the high seas, and other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily available in the United States today than they were two decades ago. Drugs have continued to flood our neighborhoods and wreak havoc on our families and our communities. I believe, as do my cosponsors of this amendment, that it is time to be honest and to admit that our international drug strategy isn't working, and that means the entire certification process. Let's look at what some leading editorial pages have recently said about certification; what the Nation's editorial pages say about drug ``certification.'' The Washington Post: Congress put the United States into the business of grading other nations on their performance in the war against drugs, and punishing those found to fall short, back in 1986. ``Certification'' then seemed an idea worth testing. It has now been tested. It's a flop. The Miami Herald, I quote: Not surprisingly, both certified allies and decertified pariah states have taken umbrage at this unilateral finger- pointing by the world's largest consumer of illegal narcotics * * * With certification on hold, the administration should have time to craft a better policy. San Francisco Chronicle: Often obscured in the complexities of international relations is the utter hypocrisy of the certification process, in which the United States--the world's leading consumer of illegal drugs--passes judgment on countries that do not live up to our lofty standards of narcotics control * * * If the United States, with all its power and riches, cannot control or even diminish the demand for drugs within its own borders, it is absurd to demand that much poorer nations save us from ourselves * * * Congress should rethink the world certification process and deal with international problems on a country-by-country basis as the need arises * * * The Christian Science Monitor: The U.S. and Mexico have every reason to be close partners and friends--able to offer warranted criticism. The yearly drug certification process is a very awkward, lopsided way of delivering it. Newsday: The real issue now is whether the rationale for certification has become so specious that the process has become irrelevant. At the very least, the entire drug- certification process needs to be reviewed. The Boston Globe: Certification is hypocritical and ineffective as a tool against drugs. It should be abandoned * * * Certification is largely blind to the contribution Americans themselves have made to an international problem. Frustrations over how to deal with that problem are not justification for pursuing poor policies--and certification is doing more harm than good. Last, the New York Times: The politicization of the debate is only one example of what is wrong with the whole certification process. It began in 1986 as a way to pressure supplier countries to fight drugs. It has not been successful and should be abolished * * * Latin Americans' resentment of the certification process makes it counterproductive * * * The process does not capture the ambiguities of cooperation * * * Certification is ultimately dangerous because it contributes to the myth that America's drug problem can best be fought overseas * * * Instead of international certification, Washington should examine how well its policies at home combat drugs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for 2 minutes before he makes that request?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. Madam President, I have been listening for the last hour and a half, roughly, to all the argument against this amendment, except for my 2 colleagues from Texas, to whom I am grateful for making their case. I want to make the case on behalf of Senator McCain and myself, and Senators Domenici, Cochran, Daschle, Kerrey, Warner, Inouye, Hutchison, and others who have supported this amendment, the cosponsors of the amendment. We have had 11 years. We didn't come up with this overnight. We have had 11 years. We have now 12.8 million people using illegal drugs in this country; 1.5 million cocaine addicts; 600,000 heroin addicts. What do we want to do, wait another year, another 2 years? Do you want that number to be 13 million drug addicts in the country? How about a million heroin addicts? When do we stop? The present system isn't working. We have decertified about 7 countries over the last several years. If anything, we have had less cooperation--Afghanistan, Burma, Iran, Syria, Colombia--and what do we get back from it? If this is working so well, are these countries cooperating today? No, we are not getting cooperation. All we are getting is a deluge of drugs pouring into the country. So I don't disagree that maybe the certification may be the only answer. But how about for 24 months we try something else, after 11 years, and if we get nothing but an increase in supply, lower costs, and the problem becomes worse and worse and worse, why don't we try something else? That is all Senator McCain and I are suggesting--for 24 months, suspend the certification process. Listen to General McCaffrey; he supports what we are trying to do here. He doesn't have a silver bullet either. But maybe, just maybe, we might come up with a better idea and do so in a sense of cooperation with nations we are going to have to have cooperation from if we are going to succeed. So, Madam President, with all due respect, when I hear that this is coming sort of unannounced--and I listened today, as I was at those hearings as well, to those witnesses and I heard them as well. The situation is worse today than 6 months ago, a year ago, or two years ago, and it is getting worse. So how about trying something else, which is something we don't do terribly frequently around here; we stick with provisions and say you can't change them. We represent 5 percent of the world's population and we consume over 50 percent of the illegal drugs in the world. Before we start lecturing everybody else, we ought to look in our own backyard and decide what we can do here at home as well. For those reasons, I urge our colleagues to give us a chance, with this modest proposal, to try something different. As General McCaffrey said in his letter, and Sandy Berger at the National Security Council, this deserves an opportunity to be tried. I urge my colleagues to do that. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Barry McCaffrey to Senator McCain and a letter from Samuel Berger to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am going to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Arizona. This amendment, offered by myself, Senator McCain and many others, suspends for 24 months the voting on the certification process. All the reports are collected, but this is an opportunity, as General McCaffrey says in his letter endorsing this amendment, this gives us time to try something different. After 11 years, the problem has gotten worse. We need to try a different dynamic. This will give us 24 months to try it. We urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

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

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

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to a request by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, the chairman of the committee and manager of the bill, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. DODD. I say, in my response to the questions, the Senator is absolutely correct. He stated it very well. And that certainly was the evidence offered by General McCaffrey and others whose business it is on a daily basis to monitor these events--and he suggested to us that, if cooperation is what we are seeking, the vehicle we have been using is not having the desired effect despite again the good intentions of those who sought this process. I say to my colleague from Arizona, in response to his question, that the genesis of the certification process dates back to a time when I think there was bipartisan frustration over whether or not there was enough attention being paid at the executive branch level in terms of the drug-related issue. So a certification process was put in place. I think most would argue today that however true those feelings may have been over a decade ago that over the last number of years there has been a heightened degree of involvement on the part of the executive branch--witness, of course, General McCaffrey, whom we all respect--doing the best they can. It is their conclusion, as well as my colleague from Arizona, as he pointed out, that this is counterproductive. I might point out, that the elections that recently took place in Mexico were historic. I think my colleague and I would agree on this. It looks as close to a democratic and corruption-free election as probably has been held in Mexico. You have new members of the national legislature, and hopefully a new beginning in many ways here. It seems to me that our efforts here might do a lot to get that kind of cooperation out of new members of the Mexican Government--the legislative branch, along with President Zedillo, who, I think all of us would agree, has certainly been most cooperative in this effort. So I agree with my colleague.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his interest in this matter. I too look forward to being kept informed about progress on this issue.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week I had worked out an amendment with the managers of the national defense authorization bill that provided for the Secretary of Defense to study and report on the status of environmental problems in Bermuda associated with the United States military presence on that island for more than 50 years. Senator Inhofe, the subcommittee chairman was particularly helpful in working with me. Inadvertently that amendment was not included in the managers en bloc amendment package on Friday afternoon. However, I am very grateful to the chairman and ranking member of the Arms Services Committee that, by unanimous consent, they have agreed to include this amendment in the authorization bill. Mr. President, for more than 50 years, United States military personnel were deployed to bases on the Island of Bermuda. In fact, United States bases occupied approximately one-tenth of Bermuda's land area. The 1941 Leased Bases Agreement formalized the conditions under which the United States military remained in Bermuda until 1995. The United States was not charged a penny in rent for its use of these properties during all of that period. I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, is fully aware of the questions that have been raised related to the United States military presence in Bermuda. I would ask him whether he believes that this is something that the Secretary of Defense should look into?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for their work on this appropriations bill and the bipartisan spirit in which it was crafted. I wish to speak for a moment on the amendment I offered on Persian Gulf war illnesses that was accepted by the chairman and ranking member. The amendment will provide $4.5 million for the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to determine what treatments are working for those who are afflicted with Persian Gulf war illnesses. The reasonableness and necessity for action along these lines seem so obvious that many of my colleagues probably find it difficult to believe that such action has not already been taken. To allay their doubts, let me quote directly from a GAO report released just last month: ``There is an absence of efforts to measure Gulf War veterans clinical progress. This leaves the government unable to promptly determine the quality and effectiveness of treatments currently being provided to Gulf War veterans.'' That's not an angry Senator making unsupported allegations. That's the objective, nonpartisan view of the General Accounting Office. Mr. President, at this point, it seems to me that we've left our ailing troops on the battlefield. Here we are, 6 years after the end of the Persian Gulf war and it takes an act of Congress to begin an effective examination of which treatments are most effective in caring for our veterans with Persian Gulf war illnesses. While I am heartened by the fact that we're offering examinations to those who served in the Persian Gulf War, I feel it's important to take the next step to determine what happens after that initial examination. Often I hear stories of families being forced to look outside the government agencies to get the care and compensation their Persian Gulf war veterans deserve. So those are the reasons that I offered the amendments to the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. Mr. President, nearly 700,000 men and women served in our Armed Forces in the Persian Gulf war. Five thousand of them were constituents of mine. Depending on what reports you read, as many as 10 percent of those who served are today ailing from some form or another of these Persian Gulf war illnesses. That's far too many to be left out on the battlefield. One ailing veteran forgotten by this country is too many. I expect to see some progress now on finding and employing effective treatments for those with Persian Gulf war illnesses. Let me again express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for approving of this funding and accepting the amendment. I'm sure they feel equally compelled by the issues raised here.

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I know that my distinguished colleague from Hawaii knows well that Bermuda is actually a tiny group of islands, 21 square miles in land area. Its environmental situation is unique in many respects--land is obviously scarce, fresh water resources are very limited, and storage capacity for hazardous waste disposal doesn't exist. It is also one of the most northerly coral reef areas, making the marine environment surrounding the island extremely fragile as well. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii that it would appear that the formerly United States occupied properties that have now reverted back to Bermudian authorities could pose a number of problems for that Government-- problems that they are now seeking our help in ameliorating. These problems include soil and ground water pollution and asbestos hazards contained in now deserted U.S. military installations on the bases. For example, most of the buildings on the bases will require demolition, if this property is to be useable again. That means that the hazardous asbestos must also be removed and appropriately stored. In addition, industrial wastes and raw sewage that were disposed of in Bassett's Cave over time will pose a threat to parts of the island's water system unless they are removed. Underground and above-ground petroleum storage tanks--many in poor condition--are leaking into surrounding soils and ground water. Left behind landfills are also causing environmental problems.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. Certainly a case can be made that this is not directly bearing on the dollar amounts here, but there is a security issue involved. Amendment No. 763 (Purpose: To congratulate Governor Christopher Patten of Hong Kong)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have an amendment that will not require a recorded vote. The reason I am offering it here is for the sense of timeliness. Again, I appreciate the indulgence of the members of the Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for reasons that will become obvious as I engage in these remarks on why I am offering this amendment at this time, this amendment congratulates Chris Patten, who served as the Governor General of Hong Kong. We can wait, I suppose, a few weeks, and it might lose its sense of timeliness. I think Chris Patten did a remarkable job in Hong Kong. He was the source of a lot of criticism within the People's Republic of China and elsewhere because he spoke up on behalf of democracy in Hong Kong and established the first freely elected assembly in Hong Kong, which we are hopeful will be reinstituted based on commitments that have been made. I thought it might be worthwhile for us as a body here to express our appreciation for the job that Chris Patten did during his tenure as a Governor of Hong Kong. It was a remarkable and historic tenure. Before the July 4th recess, I spoke at some length about Chris Patten's accomplishments as the last Governor of Hong Kong under British rule. Much of what I said at the time I have sought to incorporate in the sense-of-the-Congress amendment. Mr. President, we all watched the pomp and circumstance on Monday, June 30, as the clock in Hong Kong ticked toward midnight. At 1 minute before midnight Hong Kong time we witnessed the Union Jack being lowered for the last time, and the unfurling of the People's Republic of China flag in the night sky. That was truly a historic occasion. Appropriately, the events were attended by representatives from governments around the world. July 1, 1997, will at the very least, become an important footnote in the history of the 20th century. Having said that, I think the U.S. Senate should also acknowledge what preceded those events--the very impressive accomplishments of the Governor, Chris Patten, during his tenure in Hong Kong. We should thank him, I think, for his service to his own country, but more importantly, in many ways to the people of Hong Kong. Simply put, that is what my amendment seeks to do. I hope my colleagues support this expression of our appreciation and congratulate him for a job well done on behalf not only of his own nation, the people of Hong Kong, but for all democracy-loving people around the globe. I ask for the adoption of the amendment at the appropriate time. I will reserve the yeas and nays. I do not want to take up time for a recorded vote unnecessarily.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to my friend and colleague from South Carolina, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and Senator Levin and others who have done, I think, a wonderful job in putting this bill together. I commend them for it. It is comprehensive, from a parochial standpoint. There are issues in my State that are addressed in this defense authorization bill which I think are extremely important from a national security standpoint, maintaining an industrial base, the teaming approach, the creative approach that the Defense Department has come up with that Electric Boat Division and Newport News in Virginia have joined together in a teaming process for the next generation of submarine technology that will allow both of those industrial bases to maintain their viability well into the next century. Mr. President, stepping back a bit and looking at the Defense authorization bill as a whole, I'd like to complement my colleagues, Senator Thurmond and Senator Levin, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for bringing to the floor a bill that provides for the Nation's defense in a sound and fiscally responsible manner. Let me comment on several provisions of the bill in particular. First and foremost, this bill supports the submarine teaming plan which will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and keep our current submarine industrial base viable for the near future. The Navy estimates that this teaming plan will save $650 million, or about half a submarine, when compared to straight competition. That's a fact, and it has not been disputed. In this era of cost cutting, teaming on submarines is clearly the best course. Moreover, if at some point in the future there is enough work for full competition between two submarine builders, only the teaming plan will ensure that two submarine builders still exist. It is far too early, however, to become complacent on this matter, for high hurdles remain, but I plan to do my utmost to make sure that this plan, fully backed by the Navy, becomes law. On a related matter, I'm glad to see that we are on track in authorizing funds to complete the third and final Seawolf submarine. Just last week, Electric Boat in Groton, CT, turned over to the Navy the U.S.S. Seawolf, the first submarine in the class and the most advanced submarine in the world. It once again demonstrates that the Nation looks to Connecticut to produce the world's finest equipment for the world's finest fighting forces. This bill also calls for 36 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, a testament to the continued need for these versatile aircraft used by nearly every branch of the Armed Forces as well as a host of countries around the world. Also, these helicopters are ever-present in disaster relief operations, from the wildfires in California to the floods in the Dakotas. This bill will ease a bit the National Guard's massive shortfall in modern helicopters. Any National Guard adjutant general will attest to the outstanding capabilities of these helicopters, especially when compared to the aging, Vietnam-era UH-1 Huey helicopters many units may be forced to continue to use for the coming years. Finally, this bill holds off on more rounds of base closures and I support that position. Although I've stood behind base closure rounds in the past, we don't have a good handle at this point on the costs and benefits from those previous rounds, so I'm disinclined to go forward. The GAO has found that, while there are probably eventual savings that accrue from BRAC rounds, the specific amounts cannot be pinned down from the available data. Furthermore, GAO has found that environmental cleanup costs have been underestimated and revenue from land sales has been overestimated--both resulting in lesser savings than DoD had initially calculated. That is why I have signed onto an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan that has the support of both the majority leader and the minority leader. The amendment simply requires that we closely examine the data from the four previous base closure rounds as well as the shutdowns scheduled over the next year before we go forward with additional rounds. This doesn't seem too much to ask when we consider the difficulties that confront communities that surround a military base on the closure list. We owe it to those communities to provide accurate estimates rather than the more familiar overstatements of savings used to justify their extreme hardship. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague. I would like to move to another two matters, if I could, Mr. President.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I offer on behalf of myself and my colleague from Arizona. This really is an amendment commending the people of Mexico, the Government of Mexico, and the people of Mexico as well, for this remarkable election that occurred just last Sunday which, for the first time in 68 years, has changed the political landscape of that country. One might ask, ``Why are we offering a resolution on this? They had their election. So be it.'' Mr. President, for over the last number of years, the only time the issue of Mexico has come up on the floor of the Senate has been in a usually highly critical way having to do with the issue of drugs, narcotics, and our concern there. We had a debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement; obviously, that provoked a lot of criticism. I thought it might be worthwhile for this body to take a moment out to say to our neighbor to the south, we applaud you as a people and as a Government for the election that you went through last Sunday. To those who were victorious, we congratulate them. To those who lost, we express our regrets for you. We commend President Zedillo for having embraced the results, who saw to it that a process was in place that would not allow the corruption that occurred in the last election when apparently people who were legitimately elected were denied those victories. The people of Mexico voted in strong numbers. There is a new mayor for the city of Mexico. Mexico, in the past, has not had freely elected mayors. So while we as a Congress have been critical of Mexico in the past, I think it is worthwhile to take a moment out to say, ``Well done,'' and that Mexico has done an excellent job here. It is the first election. We hope there will be many more like it in the years to come. Obviously, one election is only the beginning of a process, but it is good for those of us who wanted to see improved relations between ourselves and our neighbor to the south. My colleague from Arizona has spent a good deal of his time as a Member of this body interested in Mexico, not just from a geographical standpoint, although the State shares a border with our neighbor to the south, but because of his concern, as well, over the issue of narcotics and trade, the border issues which his State and other States in the Southwest face all the time. We are not reluctant, as a body, to raise our voice where criticism is due. It is worthwhile to take a few moments out and to offer praise where praise is due. The people of Mexico, the Government of Mexico, the candidates and the parties involved, I think, are worthy of taking a moment out to congratulate them on their election last Sunday and to urge they continue in that process in the years ahead. I urge the adoption of this language, and on this amendment, at some point, I will want to get a recorded vote because I am sure it will be unanimous, and I think it may be worthwhile to have such a recorded vote when it is appropriate and proper to do so.