Congressional Record: September 2, 1998 (Senate)
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Amendment No. 3527
(Purpose: Establish a procedure for the declassification of information
pertaining to Guatemala and Honduras)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, and
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Leahy, proposes
an amendment numbered 3527.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section:
[[Page S9839]]
SEC. . RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AVAILABLE HUMAN RIGHTS
RECORDS PURSUANT TO PENDING REQUESTS.
(a) Guatemala and Honduras.--
(1) The United States has received specific written
requests for human rights records from the Guatemala
Clarification Commission and the National Human Rights
Commissioner in Honduras, and from American citizens and
their relatives who have been victims of gross violations of
human rights in those countries.
(2) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, each agency shall review all requested human rights
records referred to in subsection (a)(1) which it has not yet
located or reviewed for the purpose of declassifying and
disclosing such records to the public except as provided in
subsection (b).
(b) Postponement of Public Disclosure.--
(1) Grounds for postponement of public disclosure of human
rights records.--An agency may only postpone public
disclosure of a human rights record or portions thereof that
are responsive to the pending requests--
(A) pursuant to the declassification standards contained in
section 6 of P.L. 102-526, or
(B)(i) if its public disclosure should be expected to
reveal the identity of a confidential human source,
(ii) however it shall not be grounds for withholding from
public disclosure relevant information about an individual's
involvement in a human rights matter solely because that
individual was or is an intelligence source, however, the
public disclosure of the fact that the individual was or is
such a source may be withheld pursuant to this section.
(2) Review of decision to withhold records.--The
Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel
(hereinafter in this section the "Panel"), established
under Executive Order No. 12958, shall--
(A) review all decisions to withhold the public disclosure
of any human rights record that has been identified pursuant
to requests referred to in subsection (a)(1), subject to the
declassification standards referred to in subsection (b)(1);
(B) notify the head of the agency in control or possession
of the human rights record that was the subject of the review
of its determination and publish such determination in the
Federal Register;
(C) contemporaneously notify the President of its
determination, who shall have the sole and nondelegable
authority to review any determination of the Panel, and whose
review shall be based on the declassification standards
referred to in subsection (b)(1). Within 30 calendar days of
notification, the President shall provide the Panel with an
unclassified certification setting forth his decision and the
reasons therefor; and
(D) publish in the Federal Register a copy of any
unclassified written certification, statement, and any other
materials that the President deems appropriate in each
instance.
(3) References.--For purposes of this section, references
in sections 6 and 9 of P.L. 102-526 to "assassination
records" shall be deemed to be references to "human rights
records".
(c) Creation of Positions.--(1) For purposes of carrying
out the provisions of this section, there shall be two
additional positions on the Panel. The President shall
appoint individuals, not currently employees of the United
States Government, who have substantial human rights
expertise and who are able to meet the requisite security
clearance requirements for these positions.
(2) The rights and obligations of such individuals on the
Panel shall be limited to matters relating to the review of
human rights records and their service on the panel shall end
upon completion of that review.
(d) Definitions.--In this Section:
(1) Human rights record.--The term "human rights record"
means a record in the possession, custody, or control of the
United States Government containing information about gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights
committed in Honduras and Guatemala.
(2) Agency.--The term "agency" means any agency of the
United States Government charged with the conduct of foreign
policy or foreign intelligence, including the Department of
State, the Agency for International Development, the Defense
Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National
Reconnaissance Office, the Department of Justice, the
National Security Council, and the Executive Office of the
President.
(3) Gross violations of internationally recognized human
rights.--The term "gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights" has the same meaning as is
contained in section 502(B)(d)(1) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
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
[[Page S9840]]
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 2, 1998.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dodd: I cannot begin to thank you enough for
being in the forefront of the struggle for the Human Rights
Information Act. Thousands upon thousands of Guatemalans and
Hondurans await the outcome of Senate action on this
legislation which is of so much importance to them. It is, of
course, of great importance to me as well.
It may seem to many in Congress that my search for justice
is never-ending. This is hardly surprising for it is exactly
how it has felt to me during these past nine long years.
Despite my best efforts, I still don't know the truth of why
I was abducted and tortured nor have I obtained any
information on the identity of "Alejandro." It is true that
various government agencies have released documents to me.
Now, let me tell you a little about them. 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 black white sheets,
and a few messages from former Ambassador Thomas Stroock--one
written a week after I was abducted that stated: "Her story,
as told is not accurate." Other cables from Stroock's
office/State Department describe me as a political
strategist, who had perhaps staged my own abduction to secure
a cut--off of U.S. aid to the Guatemalan military. These are
examples of "relevant documents" which have been released
to me.
In the summer of 1996, the Justice Department conducted a
criminal investigation. What I learned only during my
participation was that I was to be the subject of the
investigation and not those who abducted and tortured me.
During my testimony before the House Human Rights Caucus on
June 24th of this year, I spoke publicly of the treatment I
received at the hands of DOJ officials. I am enclosing that
testimony as both description of and further witness to how
my case has, in fact, been investigated.
Now, on top of all this, I have been told by a legislative
aide to another Senator that members of the Senate
Intelligence Committee are saying that only 3 or 4 documents
(pages) have been withheld from me. At this moment, a 284+
page Classified Report pertaining to my case remains in the
hands of the Justice Department, which has been made
available to the Intelligence Oversight Board, the former
Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas Stroock, and who knows how
many others. But I, on the other hand, am denied access to it
in order to protect my privacy and that of their sources, or
so I am told (refer to June 24th Statement enclosed).
Again Senator Dodd, I thank you for your efforts on behalf
of all who seek the truth. Like countless Guatemalans and
Hondurans, this is all I seek. By calling on my government to
declassify documents, I am simply pleading with it to allow
us to heal. I want to put this nightmare behind me. I want to
be able to have a good night's rest. I want peace--for myself
and for the people of Guatemala and Honduras. And I don't
think that is too much to ask.
In a spirit of gratitude,
Dianna Ortiz,
OSU.
____
Congressional Human Rights Caucus Briefing on Torture
(By Sister Dianna Ortiz)
Thank you all for coming. As a survivor of torture, I want
to urge you to support declassification of United States
government documents that shed light on human rights abuses.
Simply by declassifying documents, our government can save
lives. Survivors of human rights violations need to know as
much as possible about who committed the atrocities against
them. With this information, justice is possible, and only
justice can lay the foundation for reconciliation, stability,
and peace. Guatemala and Honduras are two countries that
would benefit immeasurably from full declassification. The
sticking point in these instances seems to be that the US has
supported the abusers.
Take my case, for example. In 1989, while I was working as
a missionary in Guatemala, I was abducted and brutally
tortured by Guatemalan security agents. My back was burned
over 100 times with cigarettes. I was gang-raped repeatedly.
I was beaten, and I was tortured psychologically as well--I
was lowered into a pit where injured women, children, and men
writhed and moaned, and dead decayed, under swarms of rats.
Finally, I was forced to stab another human being.
Throughout the ordeal, my Guatemalan torturers said that if
I did not cooperate, they would have to communicate with
Alejandro. My last minutes in detention, I met Alejandro,
whom the torturers referred to as their boss. He was tall and
fair skinned and spoke halting Spanish, with a thick American
accent. His English was American, flawless, unaccented. When
I asked him if he was an American, his answer was evasive:
"Why do you want to know?"
He told me to get into his jeep and said he would take me
to a friend of his at the United States embassy, who would
help me leave the country. During the ride, he enjoined me to
forgive my torturers and said if I didn't, there would be
consequences for me. He reminded me that may torturers had
made videotapes and taken photos of the parts of the torture
I was most ashamed of. He said if I didn't forgive my
torturers, he would have no choice but to release those
photos and tapes to the press. At that point, I jumped out
the jeep and ran.
For the last nine years, I have tried to stop running. I
have tried to face the torturers head on and demand answers,
demanded justice. Instead of "forgiving" my torturers, I
filed suit against the Guatemalan government and called for
an investigation. Like so many investigations in Guatemala,
it led nowhere. Guatemalan and US officials alike said in
public and in private that I was a lesbian who had never been
tortured but had sneaked out for a tryst. The 111 cigarette
burns on my back were the result of kinky sex.
Two years ago, I held a five-week vigil before the White
House, asking for the declassification of all US government
documents related to human rights abuses in Guatemala since
1954, including documents on my own case. I asked to know the
identity of Alejandro. The Justice Department had begun an
investigation August 1995, and the Intelligence Oversight
Board had been investigating my case for more than a year,
but I still had no answers. Finally, after weeks of fasting
and camping day and night before the White House, a number of
State Department documents were released to me. The following
year, various FBI documents were declassified, but none of
these documents contained anything about the identities of my
torturers or of their boss, Alejandro.
Efforts to obtain information through US government
investigations also led nowhere. The Department of Justice
interviewed me for more than forty hours, during which time
DOJ attorneys accused me of lying. They interrogated my
friends and family members and generally made it clear that I
was the culprit, I was the one being investigated, not the US
government officials who might have acted wrongly in my case.
Ultimately, the investigators seemed unable to comprehend the
effects on a torture survivor of testifying in intricate
detail for hours on end. Extremely dangerous and painful
flashbacks were the consequence in my case. A torture
survivor should never be asked to re-enter the torture
chamber, to relive the brutal abuse. After I had given the
great majority
[[Page S9841]]
of my testimony, I felt compelled to withdraw from direct
participation in the DOJ investigation. The investigators had
the sketches I had made with the help of a professional
forensic artist, delineating the characteristics of each
torturer, including Alejandro, and the investigators had my
testimony, in detail. The responsibility for finding answers
lay with them.
Because I could no longer subject myself to the
retraumatization brought on by the investigators' questions
and manner, the DOJ closed my case. Exactly what the DOJ's
final conclusions were, I do not know. I do know that as a
result of the investigation, the DOJ came up with a 200+page
report, which is classified. The Department of Justice told
me the report was classified to protect sources and methods
and to protect my own privacy. Dan Seikely, who was in charge
of the Department of Justice investigation, said only three
people would be able to see the report: Attorney General
Janet Reno, the deputy attorney general, and himself. Only
four copies of the report existed, he said, and they would be
kept under lock and key.
In recent months, however, it has become clear to me that a
number of other people have read the report. A government
official recently told me that he had seen the report and
added that officials in the State Department also had seen
it, as had Thomas Stroock, the US ambassador to Guatemala at
the time I was abducted. I can't help but wonder how my
government intends to protect my privacy by releasing the
report to such individuals. It was under Stroock's command
that an embassy staff member told a visiting religious
delegation--"I'm tired of all these lesbian nuns coming down
to Guatemala." It was Stroock who said, a week after I was
abducted, before any embassy member had interviewed me, "Her
story as told is not accurate." It was Stroock who told the
State Department that my motives were questionable, that I
had perhaps staged my own abduction to secure a cut-off of US
aid to the Guatemalan army. Yet it is Stroock to whom the US
government gives the report--a report so private that even I
cannot see it. After he had read the DOJ report, Stroock
spoke to a journalist, who in turn called me. Stroock was
informing the press of his access to the report. In spite of
his questionable right to see it, he was making no secret of
the privileges he enjoyed. There are things in the report
that I have kept secret, that I have been ashamed of--
things that I didn't tell DOJ investigators but that my
friends revealed as they were being interrogated--and I
have lived under this tacit blackmail: If I push for more
answers in my case, or if I even file a Freedom of
Information Act request to get the DOJ report
declassified, the secret information the investigators
have will be leaked.
Instead of having that information leaked, let me simply
tell you: I got pregnant as a result of the multiple gang
rapes by my torturers, and unable to carry within me what
they had engendered, what I could view only as a monster, the
product of the men who had raped me, I turned to someone for
assistance and I destroyed that life. Am I proud of this
decision? No. But if I had to make the decision again, I
believe I would again decide as I did eight years ago.
I had little choice. My survival was so precarious at that
time that to have to grow within me what the torturers had
left me would have killed me. I tell you this simply to free
myself so that I can proceed to uncover the truth. Today, I
am filing a FOIA to demand the DOJ report on my case. After
such anguish that the DOJ interviews caused me, I have the
right to know what was learned in my case, what conclusions
were reached and why. I demand access to the report, the same
access that members of the State Department, Thomas Stroock,
and members of the Intelligence Oversight Board have had, in
spite of Seikely's guarantee of confidentiality.
I want to be able to evaluate the thoroughness of the
investigation so that I can make informed decisions about
what step to take next. My torturers were never brought to
justice. It is possible that, individually, they will never
be identified or apprehended. And in some senses, I would
like to resign myself to this fact and move on. I have a
responsibility, however, to the people of Guatemala and to
the people of the world, a responsibility to insist on
accountability where accountability is possible. If the US
government was involved in my torture in Guatemala, in what
other countries of the world are torturers receiving orders
from Americans? We have to know what the United States has
done and where. For our own peace of mind as US citizens and
for the good of the citizens of the world, we need the files
released. If the US has done nothing wrong, then we can all
rest easy. If the US is culpable, we must know this and
expose this and take steps to ensure that our government
never again collaborates with or hires torturers, in any
place, for any reason.
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.
[...]
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 3527
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Dodd amendment,
No. 3527.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Dodd amendment, and
my opposition is this:
First, the Dodd amendment would give foreign organizations--foreign
organizations--extraordinary statutory privileges to expedite and to
compel declassification of U.S. national security information. Yes, it
would give foreign organizations--not us--extraordinary statutory
privileges to expedite and compel declassification of U.S. national
security information, something that we have not ever had.
Creating such statutory rights, which the Dodd amendment, if it is
adopted and becomes law, will do, also opens the door to foreign
organizations to take intelligence, law enforcement, defense and
foreign policy agencies to court to compel special declassification
requests.
Second, to complete the review of the numerous documents that fall
under this amendment in just 4 months--4 months--agencies will be
forced to reassign personnel, many of whom would otherwise be carrying
out important mission functions, or risk being sued by foreign
organizations for noncompliance. Imagine that, think about this, I ask
my colleagues this afternoon.
Third, this amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut is
woefully inadequate in protecting intelligence sources and methods and,
as a result, will chill current and future sources from providing the
CIA with critical information--the very information that policymakers
need to address human rights and other important foreign policy issues
in many countries.
Fourth, the Dodd amendment applies the same standards for withholding
information that are being used to declassify records relating to the
JFK assassination. The JFK records are over 40 years old. The documents
covered by this amendment are much newer, some only a year old. Because
the privacy, law enforcement and intelligence concerns are much greater
in newer documents, there is no reason for the standards to be any
different than those set out in President Clinton's Executive Order No.
12958. Otherwise, we risk jeopardizing ongoing prosecutions, losing
critical intelligence sources and methods, and releasing private
information.
Mr. President, while we have previously enacted declassification
exceptions for other historical records, special statutory authority to
expedite and compel declassification of records should be exclusively
reserved for American citizens, not foreign entities.
The intelligence community has informed the Intelligence Committee in
the Senate that it expects that substantial litigation costs will
result if the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut becomes
law.
Litigation costs can be approximately 100 times as much per case than
processing information for declassification and usually results in
little, if any, additional information being released. Just think about
it, Mr. President. Think about how far this amendment will go.
Finally, the Dodd amendment is an unfunded mandate. Agencies would be
required to pay for this declassification requirement out of existing
funds. I understand that there are only a limited number of personnel
with the necessary expertise to review and to declassify our
intelligence records. As a result, resources spent on reviewing
documents for the foreign organizations under this amendment, if it
were adopted, will no longer be available to process declassification
requests for others--including many U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens with
equally meritorious requests for information will have to stand aside
while these foreign entities go to the front of the line.
In the fiscal year 1998, Mr. President, Congress funded a special
declassification program to review and to declassify many of these
documents. Since this amendment changes the standards for withholding
information, the intelligence community will have to re-review the
documents that the taxpayers have already paid to review.
Mr. President, at the proper time I would hope that we would table
this amendment, especially until we have an opportunity to fully
consider its impact on the intelligence community and the Departments
of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the American people.
I think this amendment has not been well thought out. I know it has
not been debated at length yet.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, both the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, who has just spoken, and I have just come from a briefing
by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the
FBI, and a host of other officials involved in protecting American
secrets and engaging in counterterrorism around the world.
The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has said that the
amendment that is pending before us is woefully inadequate to protect
our national security and the information that we need to keep
classified in the United States.
I wholeheartedly associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of
the Intelligence Committee and want to argue in the strongest way that
this amendment be defeated. It should be defeated on a 98-2 vote,
frankly, because it would be an astonishing precedent-setting action of
giving to foreign countries--foreign powers--power over United States
classified material, power that not even U.S. citizens possess.
It would greatly jeopardize the sources and methods for gathering
intelligence that we have to employ in different parts of the world in
order to get the information necessary to protect the security of the
United States, all in the name of human rights, which all of us are,
frankly, extraordinarily committed to protect. As a member of the
Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, who has just spoken, and I, and others, have
gone to great lengths to ensure that the CIA and other
American intelligence organizations are strictly adherent to standards
for human rights and that we will help others track down human rights
abuses wherever and however it is necessary. But to provide for the
[[Page S9855]]
wholesale declassification of American secret information for
Guatemalan and Honduran organizations under this amendment, as I said,
is not only unprecedented, but is astonishing in its lack of concern
for American security.
I do not suggest, by any means, that the sponsors of the amendment do
not deeply care about the security of the United States. But the way
this amendment is written, as I said, according to the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, is woefully inadequate in protecting
intelligence sources and methods, and as a result will chill current
and future sources from providing the CIA information, in fact,
information that is essential for us to ensure the protection of human
rights in the very countries for which this amendment is designed to
get information.
It ostensibly applies the same standards that are used for the
declassification of documents relating to the JFK assassination. And
that is the basis upon which it is argued, "Oh, well, it must be OK."
But there are a couple of key factors here, Mr. President.
First of all, those are for Americans. This is declassification for
American citizens. This is not declassification for foreign governments
or foreign organizations. But of equal importance, the JFK
assassination documents are--what?--40 years old. We are talking, in
this amendment here, about information which is much more current. The
privacy, law enforcement, and intelligence concerns are much greater in
these newer documents.
There is no reason, frankly, for the standards to be different than
those set out in the President's Executive Order 12958. Otherwise, we
risk jeopardizing ongoing prosecutions, we risk losing critical
intelligence information, compromising sources and methods, and,
frankly, releasing a lot of private information as well.
As I said, it is astonishing to me that we would have an amendment
that would literally give foreign organizations these extraordinary
statutory privileges to expedite and compel declassification of U.S.
national security information. And for the other reasons that the
chairman pointed out--the unfunded mandate, the substantial costs
associated with it, the substantial litigation costs--I am not sure if
the chairman pointed that out, but the litigation costs alone could be
well over 100 times greater than just the processing cost for the
information itself.
In fiscal year 1998, Congress funded a very special declassification
program to review and declassify many of the documents. Since this
amendment changes the standards for withholding information, the
intelligence community will have to re-review the documents, and, as I
said, the taxpayers have already paid for that review.
We ought to table this amendment until we have an opportunity to
fully consider its impact, the impact on the intelligence community,
the Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as on the human
rights that, frankly, would be potentially abused and the human rights
concerns that we have as a result of not being able to have access to
the same information or to the information that we need to protect
human rights because of the implication with respect to the sources and
methods that could well be degraded as a result of the passage of this
amendment.
So this is the kind of thing that ought to be considered very, very
carefully, first of all, in the Select Committee on Intelligence. It
has not been done. It ought to be very carefully vented through the
administration. As I said, the DCI is very, very concerned about this
particular amendment. It is premature at best and enormously
antithetical to our intelligence collection efforts at worst. As a
result, at the appropriate time I will urge my colleagues to support a
motion to table this amendment.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator
from Connecticut.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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
[[Page S9856]]
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. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator
Dodd that requires the declassification of information pertaining to
human rights violations in Guatemala and Honduras. Americans citizens
and their relatives, as well as many Guatemalan and Honduran citizens,
were victims of gross human rights violations in these nations, and it
is our government's duty to provide them with as much information as
judiciously possible. Further, I believe the release of this
information will help the democratic governments of Guatemala and
Honduras pursue justice, acknowledge the truth, cement the rule of law,
and help enable the healing of these societies rent by decades of civil
war.
When we deal with the declassification of intelligence information,
the issues are never simple. The mission of our intelligence agencies
is to collect information that will protect American lives and preserve
our national security. But, in order to provide this vital information,
our intelligence personnel must persuade clandestine sources to provide
information covertly, and they must use specialized methods that help
collect and protect those secrets. Revelation of sources and methods,
even if done in pursuit of moral ends, will only increase the threat to
American lives and security. Revelation of sources and methods would,
ironically, diminish America's ability to get information on human
rights abuses. This amendment has been crafted with an awareness of the
need to inform Americans more broadly while at the same time protecting
intelligence sources and methods. I appreciate Senator Dodd's
understanding of these issues and his leadership on this amendment.
American citizens and their relatives have been wrongfully
imprisoned, injured, raped, and killed during the course of the civil
wars in Guatemala and Honduras. Our government may not have all the
information they seek about what occurred in these countries, but what
relevant information we do have we should provide them. This amendment
will help their pursuit of justice and hopefully provide answers to the
many questions that surround these events.
Fortunately, the violence and strife that plagued Guatemala and
Honduras over the years has abated. These nations now have democratic
governments that bring hope and promise to their citizens. But, each of
these nations must face their past in order to build a just and
prosperous society in the future. The Guatemala Clarification
Commission and the National Human Rights Commissioner in Honduras are
integral to this process. The information that will be provided to
these groups under this amendment can only help bring healing and
promote peace in our hemisphere.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in 1989, Sister Dianna Ortiz was
brutally abducted and raped in Guatemala where she was working as a
missionary.
She was victimized by the Guatemalan government and by her own
government. From the day of the attack, the United States government
has compounded her suffering. She was accused of fabricating her story.
She has been treated like a criminal instead of as a victim.
I am horrified by the reports of Sister Dianna's abduction and
torture--and by our government's cruel response to her suffering, which
continues today.
I would like to read to my colleagues from a column written by Paul
Ferris in the National Catholic Reporter:
Her kidnaping and confinement included multiple gang rapes;
repeated beatings; intimidation and interrogation; over 100
cigarette burns on her back; video taping her captivity as a
form of blackmail; and lowering her in a pit where injured
women, children and men writhed and moaned and the dead
decayed under swarms of rats. Finally, her abductors held her
hand and arms as she was physically coerced into stabbing a
woman with a machete.
That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Dodd's amendment to
declassify government documents that shed light on human rights abuses.
Federal agencies would be required to identify, organize and declassify
all records regarding American activities in Guatemala and Honduras
after 1944. This would enable Sister Dianna and other victims of
torture to learn the truth about their cases.
We need to learn the truth, even if it is painful. By hiding behind a
wall of secrecy, we are eroding the American people's confidence and
trust in their government. We undermine our foreign policy and
intelligence agencies--and the important work they do--if we cover-up
their past actions.
Some argue that the release of this information would "compromise
intelligence sources and methods." I disagree. If our sources were
people who attacked American citizens, we need to know it. If our
methods included complicity in torture, we need to know that too.
Sister Dianna Ortiz and other victims of torture are seeking to
rebuild their lives. The least that we can do is to help them to learn
the truth about the tragic events that have changed their lives.
Mr. President: Our policies must reflect our values. If our efforts
to promote democracy and human rights around the world are to be
successful, we must be honest and open about the tragic mistakes we
have made in the past.
I commend Senator Dodd for his leadership in calling for an honest
and just accounting of America's history in Central America. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting his amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the Ferris column and an article from
the National Catholic Reporter be printed in the Record at this time.
Sister Dianna is Inspirational
(By Paul Ferris)
Members of the Baltimore archdiocese should know that
Ursuline Sister Dianna Ortiz, since her ordeal, (reported in
CR July 2) has devoted all her energy to the task of helping
other torture survivors and has
[[Page S9857]]
worked tirelessly for the cause of human rights for the
people of Guatemala and other countries where torture exists.
Sister Dianna has become a model of faith and courage to
countless religious and laity whom she has inspired.
Through the testimonies of Sister Dianna and members of
Coalition Missing, a group she co-founded comprised of
American citizens, Guatemalans living in the U.S. and their
families who suffered torture and murder in Guatemala, the
United States government felt compelled to investigate and
publicly disclose CIA and other intelligence agency abuses in
paying known human rights violators, referred to as "dirty
assets," to spy for the U.S. As a result of the Intelligence
Oversight Board investigation, at least 100 dirty assets were
removed from the CIA's payroll and CIA station chiefs were
fired from their positions in Guatemala for not reporting the
extent of the crimes committed against the people of
Guatemala by these dirty assets. This Intelligence Oversight
Board (IOB) report recommended a number of reforms in the way
intelligence agencies operate in an effort to bring them into
line with American democratic values. The IOB also exposed
the ugly fact that, for at least nine years, torture was
being taught at the notorious School of the Americas in Fort
Benning, Ga.
Though Sister Dianna's testimony has been continually
challenged by the Guatemalan government, and by U.S. State
Department and Justice Department officials, the Human Rights
Commission of the Organization of American States, after a
thorough seven-year investigation, found Sister Dianna to be
an "entirely credible witness," and has demanded the
apprehension and punishment of her abductors and their co-
conspirators, and restitution to Sister Dianna as much as
possible.
Sister Dianna has been able to accomplish all of this while
at the same time trying to heal from her own physical and
emotional torment associated with the after-effects of
torture. Her kidnapping and confinement included: multiple
gang-rapes; repeated beatings; intimidation and
interrogation; over 100 cigarette burns on her back; video
taping her captivity as a form of blackmail; and lowering her
in a pit where injured women, children and men writhed and
moaned and the dead decayed under swarms of rats. Finally,
her abductors held her hands and arms as she was physically
coerced into stabbing a woman with a machete.
Among a whole host of violated personal, civil and
religious rights cited by the Organization of American States
against the government of Guatemala in the case of Sister
Dianna, one that concerns every Catholic directly is the
denial of her right to missionary activity. The attack on
Sister Dianna, who was teaching Mayan children to read by
using the Bible as a text, is an attack on all Catholics and
Christians who, exercising their God-given and legal right to
religious freedom, seek to spread the Gospel of Jesus through
missionary activity in other lands.
____
Dianna Ortiz Joins Vigil for Torture Victims
(By Arthur Jones)
Washington.--The heat index was 106 degrees as the small
group set up its table in Lafayette Park across the street
from the White House preparing for a June 26 dawn-to-dusk
candlelight vigil.
Among the people wearing the white "Help Stop Torture" T-
shirts was Ursuline Sr. Dianna Ortiz who, during
Congressional testimony two days earlier, broke down as she
recounted how she had become pregnant as a result of being
brutalized and raped by Guatemalan security forces and had
had an abortion.
The nearby White House was unoccupied--President Clinton
was in Beijing where, finally, he had decided to speak out on
China's human rights abuses.
The gathering in Lafayette Park--sponsored by the Torture
Abolition and Survivors Support Committee that was
culminating three days of Washington meetings and testimony--
had similar concerns. The Support Committee estimates the
United States is home to more than 400,000 torture survivors.
Before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus June 24,
torture victims from the 1980s and '90s described what they
underwent in locations ranging from Turkey to Nigeria, from
Iraq to the Philippines, from Columbia to Pakistan, from
Tibet to Guatemala (see accompanying story).
Ortiz told the caucus, "For the last nine years I have
tried to stop running. I have tried to face the torturers
head on and demand answers, demand justice. Instead of
forgiving my torturers, I filed suit against the Guatemalan
government and called for an investigation."
She said the Guatemala investigation "led nowhere," that
her five-week vigil in front of the White House seeking
declassification of documents that could reveal the
identities of her torturers had failed; the U.S. government
investigations produced nothing; that Department of Justice
investigators accused her of lying; and that Guatemalan and
U.S. government officials, "in public and private, said
I was a lesbian who had sneaked out for a tryst, [that]
the 111 cigarette burns on my back were the result of
kinky sex."
Ortiz said that because she could no longer subject herself
to the "retraumatization" brought on by justice department
invesigators' questions and manner, the department had closed
her case.
One of the people who saw the Department of Justice report,
said Ortiz, was Thomas Strouck, U.S. ambassador to Guatemala
at the time of her 1989 abduction, "who before any member of
the U.S. Embassy had interviewed me, said `Her story is not
accurate,' and told the State Department that my motives were
questionable."
Strouck later discussed the report with a journalist, Ortiz
testified, "who then called me. There are things in that
report I have kept secret, that I have been ashamed of--
things I did not tell DOJ investigators but that my friends
revealed as they were being interrogated--and I have lived
under tacit blackmail."
"Let me simply tell you," she told the panel, "I got
pregnant as a result of the multiple gang rapes by my
torturers, and unable to carry within me what they had
engendered, what I could view only as a monster, the product
of the men who had raped me, I turned to someone for
assistance and destroyed that life."
Ortiz was unable to continue, the rest of her testimony was
read for her: "If I had to make the decision again, I
believe I would again decide as I did eight years ago. I had
little choice. My survival was so precarious at that time
that to have to grow within me what the torturers had left me
would have killed me. I tell you this simply so that I can
proceed with the truth."
Ortiz has since filed a Freedom of Information Act request
for the Department of Justice report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make two quick points and perhaps
close this debate.
First of all, under U.S. law, families and victims of crime in the
United States, Americans, have the ability to go through the State
Department to get this kind of information. That provision was included
in last year's intelligence bill.
Secondly, I made the point earlier we are not as concerned about
American citizens having the right to get information declassified as
we are foreign organizations. What I pointed out was there are two
foreign organizations that are specifically defined in the bill as
being permitted, then, to have access to this information and to
require the departmental procedure which would result in the
declassification or at least the consideration of declassification of
this information. That is what is unprecedented here. That is what
would be so astonishing.
Finally, the process here is not a simple, inexpensive process where
the CIA can inject and stop it. It is an interagency group, and the CIA
can be and, in fact, a majority of time where this has been used, my
understanding is it has been overridden. There are private people on
the panel as well as representatives from other government agencies. As
a result, you are talking about an extraordinarily time-consuming and
expensive operation for people who are really charged with other
responsibilities.
With respect to the American citizens, I think we have that covered.
With respect to foreign powers and foreign groups, I don't think we
want to give them rights in requiring declassification of materials
that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is concerned does
not adequately protect our national security needs.
Again, I urge at the appropriate time that the motion to table be
supported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has
made a very, very strong and a very good statement in support of his
amendment.
The Senator from Connecticut is one of the most knowledgeable people,
if not the most knowledgeable Senator, on Central and Latin American
matters. He has traveled many times to the region, he speaks fluent
Spanish, and he has been consistent in speaking up for the rights of
American citizens and of the Central American people.
I have often worried that because of our own complicity, either
active or accidental, we have allowed the coverup of some very serious
misdeeds in that part of the world.
After the murder of the Jesuits, I was very critical of the
investigation of those heinous crimes. I was asked to go down so the
Salvadoran authorities could show me how they were conducting an
investigation to get the perpetrators. And I went to see the chief
investigator, the prosecutor.
Now, Mr. President, a murder case is a relatively easy crime to
prosecute. Any of us who has prosecuted murder cases knows that. You
have a dead
[[Page S9858]]
body, you have certain physical evidence, and you put it together. It
was so obvious that the evidence of the murders of the Jesuits had been
destroyed, covered up, removed. Members of our own Government were well
aware of this and didn't want to blow the whistle. I did in a press
conference, and I quickly left the country, I might say, because of
threats against me for doing it.
What the Senator from Connecticut proposes by this amendment is to
protect, among others, our own citizens. People like Sister Diana
Ortiz, who have tried for years to find out what her own government
knows about what was done to her, and possibly who was involved. There
are other crimes that were covered up, including by U.S. officials. If
mistakes were made or crimes committed in Central America we should
know about them. It is, after all, it is information in the possession
of our own Government.
The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut protects information
that should be kept secret in the interests of national security. But
too often, information that should not be kept secret has been
withheld, information which could shed light on atrocities and the fate
of people who disappeared. That is wrong. I might ask this question of
my friend from Connecticut. Would it be safe to say that his amendment
protects our legitimate national security interests, while it seeks to
obtain information about crimes that were committed that the American
people have every right to know about?
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. LEAHY. Well, Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut,
that really is the point. In my years here, I have seen time and time
again a resolution or amendment to condemn this or that country that
violates human rights. They usually pass virtually unanimously. That is
fine. We should stand up for human right wherever they occur. But we
are now asking our own government for information about Americans whose
human rights were violated, and we get pages and pages that are blacked
out. That is unacceptable. We should at least be able to tell the
families of Americans who disappeared or who were murdered or tortured
as much as we can about these crimes.
Frankly, we cannot credibly condemn other countries for their
misdeeds, and not be willing to find out what happened to our own
citizens because possibly, conceivably, somebody in our Government may
have broken the law. If they did we should know about it, and if the
truth comes out we can hold people accountable and deter others from
covering up crimes in the future. So I strongly support the amendment
of the Senator from Connecticut.
[...]
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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Dodd amendment is the pending
amendment. Let me just say to my colleagues, if the motion to table the
Dodd amendment, which I will shortly make, is approved, then the next
vote will be on final passage and we will be to the completion of this
legislation.
Senator Shelby has indicated if the motion to table is not approved,
he will have further observations to make about the Dodd amendment.
So Mr. President, at this time on behalf of the Senator from Alabama,
Senator Shelby, and myself, I move to table the Dodd amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The question is on agreeing to
the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S9860]]
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), is
absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote "yea."
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Bingaman
Coverdell
Domenici
Glenn
Helms
Inouye
Murkowski
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3527) was agreed
to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
