国会纪录：1998年9月2日（参议院）外国业务，出口融资和相关机构拨款法案，1999年修订第3527号（──拟订与危地马拉和洪都拉斯有关的信息的程序）Dodd先生。主席先生，我向桌面发出修正案，并立即审议。主持人。职员将报告。立法职员如下：来自康涅狄格的参议员[先生Dodd]为自己和Mikulski女士，Kerrey先生，Kerry先生和Leahy先生，提出了一份修正案，编号为3527. Dodd先生。主席先生，我请求征收修正案的一致同意。主持人。没有反对，它是如此有序。该修正案如下：在票据的适当位置添加以下新部分：[[页S9839] 2秒。 . 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.