[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7048-S7052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to my friend and
colleague from South Carolina, the distinguished chairman of the
committee, and Senator Levin and others who have done, I think, a
wonderful job in putting this bill together. I commend them for it. It
is comprehensive, from a parochial standpoint. There are issues in my
State that are addressed in this defense authorization bill which I
think are extremely important from a national security standpoint,
maintaining an industrial base, the teaming approach, the creative
approach that the Defense Department has come up with that Electric
Boat Division and Newport News in Virginia have joined together in a
teaming process for the next generation of submarine technology that
will allow both of those industrial bases to maintain their viability
well into the next century.
Mr. President, stepping back a bit and looking at the Defense
authorization bill as a whole, I'd like to complement my colleagues,
Senator Thurmond and Senator Levin, the chairman and ranking member of
the Armed Services Committee for bringing to the floor a bill that
provides for the Nation's defense in a sound and fiscally responsible
manner.
Let me comment on several provisions of the bill in particular.
First and foremost, this bill supports the submarine teaming plan
which will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and keep our
current submarine industrial base viable for the near future. The Navy
estimates that this teaming plan will save $650 million, or about half
a submarine, when compared to straight competition. That's a fact, and
it has not been disputed. In this era of cost cutting, teaming on
submarines is clearly the best course. Moreover, if at some point in
the future there is enough work for full competition between two
submarine builders, only the teaming plan will ensure that two
submarine builders still exist.
It is far too early, however, to become complacent on this matter,
for high hurdles remain, but I plan to do my utmost to make sure that
this plan, fully backed by the Navy, becomes law.
On a related matter, I'm glad to see that we are on track in
authorizing funds to complete the third and final Seawolf submarine.
Just last week, Electric Boat in Groton, CT, turned over to the Navy
the U.S.S. Seawolf, the first submarine in the class and the most
advanced submarine in the world. It once again demonstrates that the
Nation looks to Connecticut to produce the world's finest equipment for
the world's finest fighting forces.
This bill also calls for 36 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, a testament
to the continued need for these versatile aircraft used by nearly every
branch of the Armed Forces as well as a host of countries around the
world. Also, these helicopters are ever-present in disaster relief
operations, from the wildfires in California to the floods in the
Dakotas. This bill will ease a bit the National Guard's massive
shortfall in modern helicopters. Any National Guard adjutant general
will attest to the outstanding capabilities of these helicopters,
especially when compared to the aging, Vietnam-era UH-1 Huey
helicopters many units may be forced to continue to use for the coming
years.
Finally, this bill holds off on more rounds of base closures and I
support that position. Although I've stood behind base closure rounds
in the past, we don't have a good handle at this point on the costs and
benefits from those previous rounds, so I'm disinclined to go forward.
The GAO has found that, while there are probably eventual savings that
accrue from BRAC rounds, the specific amounts cannot be pinned down
from the available data. Furthermore, GAO has found that environmental
cleanup costs have been underestimated and revenue from land sales has
been overestimated--both resulting in lesser savings than DoD had
initially calculated.
That is why I have signed onto an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan
that has the support of both the majority leader and the minority
leader. The amendment simply requires that we closely examine the data
from the four previous base closure rounds as well as the shutdowns
scheduled over the next year before we go forward with additional
rounds. This doesn't seem too much to ask when we consider the
difficulties that confront communities that surround a military base on
the closure list. We owe it to those communities to provide accurate
estimates rather than the more familiar overstatements of savings used
to justify their extreme hardship.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S7049]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 762
(Purpose: To add a subtitle relating to Persian Gulf War illnesses)
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] proposes an
amendment numbered 762.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment that was
adopted in the other body's consideration of the authorization for the
Armed Services of this country, adopted 417-0. But I thought it was
worthwhile for this body to speak as well to this issue.
I speak of the gulf war illnesses, Mr. President, that virtually
every Member of this body and others have expressed deep concern about
to the members of their own States who served in the gulf war. We know
now that at least 10 percent of the 700,000 that served in the war may
have been afflicted with a gulf war illness of one kind. To the credit
of General Schwarzkopf and others who testified in recent weeks, it was
suggested this matter ought to be pursued.
It is mystifying and disturbing to many exactly what kind of exposure
those men and women were subjected to. I do not know that anyone can
tell you categorically what the answer is yet, but this amendment
tracks some of the conclusions reached by the General Accounting Office
that they revealed in a recent report about the gulf war illnesses. The
author of the amendment in the House, as well as myself, tracked that
report, drafted this language, and are asking our colleagues to support
it so that we might not only get to the bottom of this and provide the
kind of treatment that our veterans deserve, but also maybe minimize in
future situations being faced with the kind of difficulties that we
have all heard about in various hearings that have been held in this
body and the other over the last number of months regarding this issue.
This amendment, as I mentioned a moment ago, will provide, I think,
some real solace, not to mention significant help, particularly help to
the 700,000 members of the Armed Forces who served in the Persian Gulf
war. And perhaps as many, as I said, as 10 percent of them who may be
suffering from some form of these Persian Gulf war illnesses. It is a
modest attempt to help those people.
In a $268 billion defense bill, I do not think we ought to find it
too difficult to provide $4.5 million, which is what this amendment
does, to study the most effective treatments of gulf war illnesses and
encourage efforts to replicate those treatments. If there is one thing
I think this body and this Nation can agree on, it is to do better by
our gulf war veterans.
Clearly, our colleagues in the House recognized the imperative here.
That body approved an amendment 417-0.
Mr. President, let me just briefly describe this amendment and why I
think it is necessary.
This amendment will require the Defense Department and the Veterans
Administration to work together to determine what is working in the
treatment of gulf war illnesses. While the DOD and VA have taken an
important step of offering examinations to all who fought in the
Persian Gulf war, those agencies have not examined the adequacy and
effectiveness of treatments after those initial examinations.
Mr. President, let me, just as an aside here, suggest as well
utilizing the forum of this body to urge the gulf war veterans to visit
their veterans hospitals in their States to be examined. There are
5,000 people in my State who served in the gulf war. Only about 400 to
500 have showed up at the veterans hospital in West Haven to be
examined to determine whether or not they may be suffering any of the
effects of the gulf war illnesses.
Many have had no effects whatsoever. But we are being told by experts
that some of the reactions are delayed reactions, and they may not be
showing up in the normal predictable course of events in a timely
fashion. But if more people would just go for that half an hour
examination, I am confident that the overwhelming majority will not
find that they suffered any consequence, but it would be helpful for
them and their families, but it would assist us immeasurably as we try
to get to the bottom of this issue.
This, as I said, is an amendment that would help us identify some of
the treatments that are working. This is based on the General
Accounting Office report that was recently released and called
``Improved Monitoring of Clinical Progress and Reexamination of
Research Emphasis Are Needed.'' It clearly asserts that neither the DOD
nor the VA has a mechanism in place to monitor the effectiveness of
treatment after those initial exams. This amendment would provide such
a means, one that I feel is long overdue.
But it is not enough, in my view, to take just a close look at the
present treatments. I think we must look ahead to make sure we do not
repeat the mistakes. And this amendment will take steps on that front
as well.
For example, the Defense Department has been unable to provide the
location of military units at certain times during the Persian Gulf
war. Specifically, we are apparently uncertain of troop movements in
the proximity of the ammunition depot at Khamisiyah when it was
destroyed.
That is why this amendment, I think, would be helpful in requiring
the Defense Department to develop a plan to collect and maintain
information regarding the daily location of units engaged in a
contingency or combat operation. Had we done that during the gulf war,
we would know where our troops were when the emissions of chemical or
biological agents occurred. That is vitally important information.
Furthermore, both the General Accounting Office and the President's
Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses have highlighted the loss or
incompleteness of military medical records. Now, years later, as
researchers attempt to determine who is and who is not suffering from
an illness that resulted from their service in the Persian Gulf war,
the fact that in many cases they cannot piece together medical
histories does not allow them to make an informed decision.
This amendment, Mr. President, would therefore require the Department
of Defense to put a system in place that would accurately record the
medical condition of service members prior to their deployment and
retain such data in a centralized location to ease future access.
Again, this is a modest proposal that would have prevented, I think,
our current difficulties had it been in place prior to or during the
Persian Gulf conflict.
Concerning the fact that troops in the Persian Gulf were given drugs
that did not yet receive FDA approval for usage, this amendment would
require that members of the Armed Forces at least be notified when they
receive an investigational new drug. That way, if such drugs are
required, at least our troops will not have any mistaken impressions
about them.
Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. It gives the Defense Department and the Department of
Veterans Affairs wide discretion and simply guides their action in
areas where I think there have been some shortcomings.
The final objective is a better understanding of the best treatments
of these illnesses and to guard against similar problems in the future.
Again, even though we have passed legislation banning the use of
chemical weapons--the treaty--I think we all realize that this may be a
reoccurring problem in the future. And this modest amendment, I think,
would go a great distance to alleviating some of these problems.
Again, I emphasize that this has been adopted by the other body
unanimously. I think it would be worthwhile
[[Page S7050]]
if this body were to express its opinion on this issue as well.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I offer this amendment and urge its
adoption.
Mr. President, I am not asking for a rollcall vote on this. One may
be necessary.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This
amendment would better coordinate DOD's and VA's response to Persian
Gulf war illnesses and would provide a plan to better protect the
health of our troops during future deployments.
At the outset, it is important to note that DOD and VA have made a
lot of progress on the important issues surrounding the illnesses
suffered by veterans of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war. They have
coordinated their efforts in areas of evaluation, research, and
outreach in ways that will benefit gulf war veterans as well as
veterans of future deployments. But I think we all agree that there is
still much to be done. This amendment builds on the coordination and
progress that has been made so far. Therefore, I encourage all of my
colleagues to join in support of this important measure.
As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have
witnessed firsthand the human costs of the gulf war. It is my belief,
and that of many others, that the casualties of this war continued long
after the battles were over. This is true of many wars, but the chronic
health problems of many of the men and women who served in the gulf war
have been particularly devastating as they have had to continue to
fight to be heard and to get the care and benefits they have earned.
Their battles should have been over by now, but their struggles are
still ongoing. This amendment would go a long way to help address some
of their concerns, and it puts some measures in place so that
hopefully, we will not repeat our mistakes with the next deployment.
This amendment is important because it would require a joint plan
from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for
providing appropriate health care for veterans of the gulf war,
including those serving in Reserve units. It would require that this
care be appropriate to the specific health problems or illnesses of
gulf war veterans and that the quality and effectiveness of their
health care be carefully monitored.
This amendment also attempts to address some of the lessons we have
learned form the gulf war. It calls for DOD to improve medical tracking
of service members deployed overseas in contingency or combat
operations through the use of pre- and post-deployment medical
examinations and through improved recordkeeping of immunization and
health records. It calls for a plan to improve collection and
maintenance of troop location information so we can better reconstruct
risks and exposure data when unanticipated exposures such as Khamisiyah
occur. It also would provide that service members receive timely notice
of use of unapproved or investigational drugs, and it would require
adequate record keeping of the administration of such drugs.
This amendment would authorize $4.5 million for the funding of
clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment protocols
for gulf war veterans who present with ill-defined or undiagnosed
conditions. It would call for a review of the previous Federal research
efforts examining gulf war illnesses, as well as recommendations for
the direction of future research efforts.
In my rule as ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I
have witnessed the struggles of America's gulf war veterans. I have
heard their testimony in our hearings and I have met with them in
hospitals and in their homes. I have received testimony from
representatives from DOD and VA and I have heard their concerns and
explanations. The course of events stemming from the gulf war, the
resulting health problems, and our Federal response have contributed to
a lack of public trust on this issue. This amendment is a step toward
making things right and restoring our veterans' trust. I am proud to
cosponsor this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to support it as
well.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think the amendment of the Senator from
Connecticut is a very worthy one. I have been asked to review it, and
other members of the committee asked to review it, including a Democrat
member. And so, if it is agreeable to the Senator from Connecticut, we
will have the amendment in line. Whether it is accepted on a recorded
vote, we will know later on this afternoon.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona.
Parliamentary inquiry. I would not have to at this moment then make a
request for a recorded vote, but I could wait on that if that became
necessary?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague.
I would like to move to another two matters, if I could, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Amendment No. 765
(Purpose: To commend Mexico on the conduct of free and fair elections
in Mexico)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleague from
Arizona, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and
Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 765.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 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:
SECTION. .
(A) Congress finds that--
(1) on July 6, 1997, elections were conducted in Mexico in
order to fill 500 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, 32 seats
in the 128 seat Senate, the office of the Mayor of Mexico
City, and local elections in a number of Mexican states;
(2) for the first time, the federal elections were
organized by the Federal Electoral Institute, an autonomous
and independent organization established under the Mexican
Constitution;
(3) more than 52 million Mexican citizens registered to
vote,
(4) eight political parties registered to participate in
the July 6, elections, including the Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI), the National Action Party (PAN),
and the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD);
(5) Since 1993, Mexican citizens have had the exclusive
right to participate as observers in activities related to
the preparation and the conduct of elections;
(6) Since 1994, Mexican law has permitted international
observers to be a part of the process;
(7) With 84% of the ballots counted, PRI candidates
received 38% of the vote for seats in the Chamber of
Deputies; while PRD and PAN candidates receive 52% of the
combined vote;
(8) PRD candidate, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas Solorzano has become
the first elected Mayor of Mexico City, a post previously
appointed by the President;
(9) PAN members will now serve as governors in seven of
Mexico's 31 states;
(B) It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the recent Mexican elections were conducted in a free,
fair and impartial manner;
(2) the will of the Mexican people, as expressed through
the ballot box, has been respected by President Ernesto
Zedillo and officials throughout his Administration;
(3) President Zedillo, the Mexican Government, the Federal
Electoral Institute, the political parties and candidates,
and most importantly the citizens of Mexico should all be
congratulated for their support and participation in these
very historic elections.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I offer on behalf
of myself and my colleague from Arizona. This really is an amendment
commending the people of Mexico, the Government of Mexico, and the
people of Mexico as well, for this remarkable election that occurred
just last Sunday which, for the first time in 68 years, has changed the
political landscape of that country.
One might ask, ``Why are we offering a resolution on this? They had
their election. So be it.''
Mr. President, for over the last number of years, the only time the
issue of Mexico has come up on the floor of the Senate has been in a
usually highly critical way having to do with the issue of drugs,
narcotics, and our concern there. We had a debate on the North American
Free Trade Agreement; obviously, that provoked a lot of criticism.
[[Page S7051]]
I thought it might be worthwhile for this body to take a moment out
to say to our neighbor to the south, we applaud you as a people and as
a Government for the election that you went through last Sunday.
To those who were victorious, we congratulate them. To those who
lost, we express our regrets for you. We commend President Zedillo for
having embraced the results, who saw to it that a process was in place
that would not allow the corruption that occurred in the last election
when apparently people who were legitimately elected were denied those
victories.
The people of Mexico voted in strong numbers. There is a new mayor
for the city of Mexico. Mexico, in the past, has not had freely elected
mayors.
So while we as a Congress have been critical of Mexico in the past, I
think it is worthwhile to take a moment out to say, ``Well done,'' and
that Mexico has done an excellent job here. It is the first election.
We hope there will be many more like it in the years to come.
Obviously, one election is only the beginning of a process, but it is
good for those of us who wanted to see improved relations between
ourselves and our neighbor to the south.
My colleague from Arizona has spent a good deal of his time as a
Member of this body interested in Mexico, not just from a geographical
standpoint, although the State shares a border with our neighbor to the
south, but because of his concern, as well, over the issue of narcotics
and trade, the border issues which his State and other States in the
Southwest face all the time.
We are not reluctant, as a body, to raise our voice where criticism
is due. It is worthwhile to take a few moments out and to offer praise
where praise is due. The people of Mexico, the Government of Mexico,
the candidates and the parties involved, I think, are worthy of taking
a moment out to congratulate them on their election last Sunday and to
urge they continue in that process in the years ahead.
I urge the adoption of this language, and on this amendment, at some
point, I will want to get a recorded vote because I am sure it will be
unanimous, and I think it may be worthwhile to have such a recorded
vote when it is appropriate and proper to do so.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from
Connecticut on proposing this amendment.
As he has pointed out, quite often when something goes wrong in
Mexico, we and our colleagues are quick to take the floor and
criticize, which is our role. But I think, as the Senator from
Connecticut also pointed out, when something good happens, it is also
important for us to take the floor and encourage our neighbors to the
south in continuing the very difficult process toward a free and open
society, which has been very difficult and arduous.
I also agree with the Senator from Connecticut we ought to have a
vote on this amendment to tell the people in Mexico and their leaders
of our support and our interest. Quite often, as I travel, especially
in Latin America with my friend from Connecticut, I continue to be
surprised at how much attention is paid to what we say here, how much
attention is paid to what we do here. Quite often, we will do a
unanimous-consent agreement, it comes to the floor, and it will make
headlines all over that particular nation which is affected. Usually it
is in the negative.
I cannot elaborate on what the Senator from Connecticut said except
to point out again--I believe the first time the Senator from
Connecticut and I traveled together was in 1987. If, 10 years ago, he
and I had been in a conversation and I said, ``Guess what? In Mexico,
an opposition party is now the mayor, a member of the opposition party
is now the mayor of Mexico City,'' which has the largest concentration
of people in Mexico, ``that many of the Governorships have been taken
over by both opposing parties, both on the right and on the left, and
that by all judgments that it was a free, fair, and open election,''
the Senator from Connecticut and I would have been accused of
irrational thinking, to say the least, because it was not in the realm
of possibility 10 years ago.
Now what has happened in Mexico, we are seeing a transition which, by
the way, will be characterized and fraught with great danger and
perhaps violence because of the inequities that exist in Mexico that we
are all aware of, but a major step forward was made. It is an important
landmark election in the history of the country of Mexico where the
ruling party not only allowed but encouraged a free and fair process,
which we all know was not the case before.
I think that we, the representatives of the American people, should
do everything in our power to applaud, appreciate, and encourage such
actions. I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut, whose long
involvement of many years on these issues is important, and it has been
an honor and a privilege for me to have the opportunity of working with
him, as we have seen our neighbors to the south, not just Mexico but
the other nations in Central and Latin America, make a transition for
which I think holds a prospect for the peoples of our hemisphere which
most observers thought was highly unlikely, if not impossible, in the
recent past.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. There is a good editorial in the Hartford Courant, entitled
``Mexico's Bloodless Revolution.'' I ask unanimous consent that that
article be printed in the Record to underscore the point the Senator
from Arizona and I have made with this amendment.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mexico's Bloodless Revolution
It's hard for most Americans to grasp the momentous nature
of Mexico's election last Sunday.
Imagine if the same political party controlled Congress and
the White House for almost 70 years. Imagine if the party won
successive elections through fraud and ruled in a manner as
imperious as a dictatorship. Then imagine that the party, in
spite of its tremendous power, lost an election.
That's what happened in Mexico. Ever since its founding in
1929, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, known as PRI,
has run the government as a fiefdom. The party's long rule
was unnatural. In a healthy democracy, voters usually prefer
periodic change if only to remind officeholders who is in
charge.
Until recent years, Mexicans lived under a quasi-democracy.
Although people voted for president, Congress and municipal
officers, the outcome was pre-ordained.
As democracy swept through Latin America and the rest of
the world--even Russia--Mexicans became convinced that their
system stood out as a democracy in name only. To their
credit, President Ernesto Zedillo and his recent predecessors
understood the necessity of change, albeit much too slowly.
Mr. Zedillo helped form an autonomous election council that
included no government officials and was not dominated by
PRI. To minimize fraud, every voter's photograph was included
on an identity card. Polling officials received special
training and political parties and candidates received
campaign funds from the treasury.
The turnout was estimated at 75 percent of the 52.2 million
registered voters, and the elections were judged by
independent observers to be clean. Unofficial results showed
PRI losing its majority in the lower house of Congress.
Mr. Zedillo could become the first Mexican president since
1913 to face an opposition legislature. Even though his
party, PRI, lost, he proclaimed that ``all Mexicans can say
with pride and with unity that democracy has been
institutionalized in our country.''
One honest election does not institutionalize democracy,
but it's a big step forward. Mexico's northern neighbors can
only be pleased by this historic development.
Mr. DODD. I thank our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee.
Certainly a case can be made that this is not directly bearing on the
dollar amounts here, but there is a security issue involved.
Amendment No. 763
(Purpose: To congratulate Governor Christopher Patten of Hong Kong)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have an amendment that will not require a
recorded vote. The reason I am offering it here is for the sense of
timeliness. Again, I appreciate the indulgence of the members of the
Armed Services Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I now send the amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
[[Page S7052]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an
amendment numbered 763.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the 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 at the following new
section:
Sec. . (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds
that--
(1) His Excellency Christopher F. Patten, the now former
Governor of Hong Kong, was the twenty-eighth British Governor
to preside over Hong Kong, prior to that territory reverting
back to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997;
(2) Chris Patten was a superb administrator and an
inspiration to the people who he sought to govern;
(3) During his five years as Governor of Hong Kong, the
economy flourished under his stewardship, growing by more
than 30% in real terms;
(4) Chris Patten presided over a capable and honest civil
service;
(5) Common crime declined during his tenure and the
political climate was positive and stable;
(6) The most important legacy of the Patten administration
is that the people of Hong Kong were able to experience
democracy first hand, electing members of their local
legislature; and
(7) Chris Patten fulfilled the British commitment to ``put
in place a solidly based democratic administration'' in Hong
Kong prior to July 1, 1997.
(b) It is the Sense of the Congress that--
(1) Governor Chris Patten has served his country with great
honor and distinction; and
(2) He deserves special thanks and recognition from the
United States for his tireless efforts to develop and nurture
democracy in Hong Kong.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for reasons that will become obvious as I
engage in these remarks on why I am offering this amendment at this
time, this amendment congratulates Chris Patten, who served as the
Governor General of Hong Kong. We can wait, I suppose, a few weeks, and
it might lose its sense of timeliness.
I think Chris Patten did a remarkable job in Hong Kong. He was the
source of a lot of criticism within the People's Republic of China and
elsewhere because he spoke up on behalf of democracy in Hong Kong and
established the first freely elected assembly in Hong Kong, which we
are hopeful will be reinstituted based on commitments that have been
made.
I thought it might be worthwhile for us as a body here to express our
appreciation for the job that Chris Patten did during his tenure as a
Governor of Hong Kong. It was a remarkable and historic tenure.
Before the July 4th recess, I spoke at some length about Chris
Patten's accomplishments as the last Governor of Hong Kong under
British rule. Much of what I said at the time I have sought to
incorporate in the sense-of-the-Congress amendment.
Mr. President, we all watched the pomp and circumstance on Monday,
June 30, as the clock in Hong Kong ticked toward midnight. At 1 minute
before midnight Hong Kong time we witnessed the Union Jack being
lowered for the last time, and the unfurling of the People's Republic
of China flag in the night sky.
That was truly a historic occasion. Appropriately, the events were
attended by representatives from governments around the world. July 1,
1997, will at the very least, become an important footnote in the
history of the 20th century.
Having said that, I think the U.S. Senate should also acknowledge
what preceded those events--the very impressive accomplishments of the
Governor, Chris Patten, during his tenure in Hong Kong. We should thank
him, I think, for his service to his own country, but more importantly,
in many ways to the people of Hong Kong. Simply put, that is what my
amendment seeks to do.
I hope my colleagues support this expression of our appreciation and
congratulate him for a job well done on behalf not only of his own
nation, the people of Hong Kong, but for all democracy-loving people
around the globe.
I ask for the adoption of the amendment at the appropriate time. I
will reserve the yeas and nays. I do not want to take up time for a
recorded vote unnecessarily.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside and I be allowed to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed until I
complete my remarks, which will be 20 or 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________