[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.

                          ____________________