[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6559-S6562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                             WORLD AFFAIRS

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I, first of all, compliment my 
distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, for what I 
thought was a very compelling analysis of what our relationship with 
China is and what it should be and what the President ought to be doing 
in China in the way of engagement to improve our relationship.
  I agree totally with everything he said. Right now, China, obviously, 
is not a democracy, though about 40 percent of her economy is private 
enterprise in the true sense of the word we cherish here.
  We have found in the past that when nations begin to permit economic 
freedom, usually the economic benefits that come from that become 
highly desirable to the people, and then they begin to seek more 
freedom, more democracy. On the other hand, you can argue that 
political democracy and social freedom should come first and everything 
else will follow. I would like to believe that, but I believe in the 
case of China, where unbelievable changes have occurred in the last 20

[[Page S6560]]

years, the ordinary citizen of this country cannot even begin to fathom 
the dramatic changes in the culture, even in the political system, and 
the economy of China.
  So I happen to come from the school of thought that believes that 
when people have economic freedom, political freedom is more likely to 
ensue than vice versa. I understand all the arguments on human rights. 
And nobody is going to stand up, who is in his right mind, and say that 
China does not violate human rights. Of course they do. And I do not 
care what anybody says, under the best case scenario, you are not going 
to get the kind of democracy in China overnight that we enjoy in this 
country.
  But I can tell you this. Engagement of China on these issues is going 
to be 10 times more beneficial to both their citizens and the world 
than our sitting back with a purist attitude saying that, ``If you 
don't do all these things we tell you to do, then we're going to quit 
trading with each other and we're going to quit our dialog with each 
other. You go ahead and start shipping missiles to Iran. You go ahead 
and violate the chemical weapons ban which you signed in 1992. And go 
ahead and violate the test ban treaty which you signed in 1992.'' Who 
wants that? Who thinks that is a good idea?
  I am not saying China would do it, but I am simply saying we are not 
going to bully a nation of 1.2 billion people. And I think our chances 
of bringing them into the mainstream are infinitely better if we engage 
them.
  So, No. 1, I applaud the President for going to China. I have a 
little difficulty with the Tiananmen Square event. But if you wanted to 
sour the trip from the opening gun, just have the President go there 
with a precondition that, ``I will not have any dialog with you in 
Tiananmen Square.'' He can turn right around and get on Air Force One 
and come home for all the good he is going to do.
  Those are the realities, Mr. President. Whether we like them or not, 
those are the facts. And everybody who knows anything about human 
psychology knows what would happen if the President took that kind of a 
stance, which a lot of people in this body have urged him to take.
  He should go there resolute on talking about human rights with the 
Chinese and engage them on it as strongly as he can. He should engage 
them on any suspected arms shipments or transfers of chemicals that we 
are concerned about. He should talk to them about all the violations of 
human rights. And he should ask them about the slave and prison labor. 
And he should ask them about forced abortions.
  There are a lot of forces at work in this country, Mr. President. We 
are having a very difficult time in this country since the Soviet Union 
fell. For the last 50 years, politicians in this country have had a 
field day hating the Soviet Union. We all have. It was a bizarre 
situation. And the Soviet Union, while they were our allies in World 
War II, after World War II was over, we had a very--not tenuous--
disastrous relationship with them.
  And the only reason I make that point is, now that the Soviet Union 
no longer exists, we have been looking around for an enemy. We do not 
cope very well without somebody to hate, and China has been elected. 
You cannot justify $270 billion on defense expenditures unless you have 
a genuine, certified enemy. So there is a lot of that at work here.
  I believe Eisenhower was absolutely right when he described the 
military-industrial complex as a real threat to the country. It is 
alive and well. I have always chastised President Eisenhower, whom I 
admired and thought he was a pretty good President, for not having made 
that military-industrial complex speech when he took office instead of 
when he left. We are all awfully courageous when we leave office.
  But in any event, there are a lot of people who simply cannot accept 
China because it is communistic. Even though, as I said, 40 percent of 
their economy is in the free market sector, politically it still is a 
Communist Nation. And there is no such thing as real democracy in 
China.
  Mr. President, there are people in this body who are going to vote 
against the most-favored-nation status of China because of China's 
treatment of Christian missionaries. I read an interesting story on 
that this week which pointed out there are 67 million Christians in 
China and the number is growing all the time. I do not really know how 
serious the discrimination allegation about religion is in China, but I 
will tell you, I suspect that it is exaggerated to some extent.
  But you have these people who resent China's, at least, reluctance to 
allow all of these various religious missionaries, especially Christian 
missionaries, into their country. So they are not going to vote for 
most-favored-nation status.
  And then there is, of course, this anti-Clinton segment. Some people 
have a very difficult time giving the President credit for anything. 
And so if they can make President Clinton look bad by going to China to 
consort with the same people Richard Nixon consorted with, if they can 
get any mileage out of that, they are going to take advantage of that. 
So you have that political faction working.
  So, Mr. President, I think the President is doing the absolutely 
right thing. I think he is going to be extremely well prepared for his 
dialog with the Chinese leaders. I personally believe that the Chinese 
can have some influence in tranquilizing the hostility between India 
and Pakistan. And when I say ``tranquilizing,'' I am talking about 
dampening their hostility toward each other ever so slightly.
  Mr. President, I said the other day to the Arkansas Bar Association 
that I believe religious extremism in any form is dangerous to our 
Nation and to the world. And the dispute between Pakistan and India is 
essentially a religious dispute between the Hindus and the Moslems. And 
if you look around the world--you look in Bosnia, they are all 
ethnically the same, but you have Catholics and you have Christians and 
you have Moslems. The Serbs are Russian Orthodox and Christian; and 
Croatia is essentially Catholic; and Bosnia is essentially Moslem. That 
is a volatile mix. Something close to 100,000 or 200,000 people have 
died as a result of the hostilities generated to a large extent to 
those religious differences.

  So if China can be a force in that part of the world to give the rest 
of us a little respite, a little better feeling about our ability to 
bring Pakistan and India together--I don't think it is unthinkable at 
all for a nuclear war to break out between those two nations; 
hostilities are intense--if China can do anything at all to 
``tranquilize'' the situation, we ought to be bringing them right along 
and telling them ``do everything you can.''
  I thought India's excuse for exploding a bomb, because they were 
afraid of China, was as transparent as Saran Wrap. China and India have 
always been enemies of a sort, but not nearly the intensity of the 
relationship between India and Pakistan, for example. In my opinion, 
they were looking for anything they could get ahold of to justify what 
they did, which is unforgivable.
  When I think about the population of China, I was there in 1978, and 
the population was 800 million. The population of China since 1978 has 
grown by 400 million people--140 million more than there are in the 
United States--which brings me to the second part of this sermon.
  Last night, I went downtown to receive a plaque from the Natural 
Resources Council which is an organization of 72 environmental groups. 
In my response, on a more serious note, I said I don't want to be the 
skunk at the lawn party, and I would like to think that I am a great 
environmentalist, but we talk about ozone depletion, we talk about 
global warming, we talk about building electric automobiles, and all of 
these things we are going to do to stop global warming from occurring. 
But the truth of the matter is we do not talk about the No. 1 
environmental problem of the planet, and that is a population out of 
control.
  When I was a young 18-year-old recruit in the Marine Corps in World 
War II, this Nation had 130 million people. So in that period of time, 
from the time I was a raw recruit in the Marine Corps until today, we 
have increased our population by 138 million--268 million, compared to 
130 million. At that same time, we had 30 million vehicles in the 
United States; today, we have 200 million vehicles. Estimates are that 
by the year 2050 we will have 400 million vehicles. My commute time 
from

[[Page S6561]]

my home to the U.S. Senate in the 23\1/2\ years I have been here has 
increased by 12 minutes.
  Today, we are taking 2.5 million acres of arable land that was 
previously used to grow food to feed ourselves and to export to a 
hungry world, out of cultivation every year and we are adding 2.5 
million people to the population. You do not have to be a rocket 
scientist to understand that you have a train wreck coming. On top of 
that, our agricultural yields are becoming static. Soybean yields were 
up slightly last year, corn yields were flat; wheat yields that we have 
seen increase over the years are becoming static. We could, perhaps, 
put a lot more money into research and reverse that trend so that we 
get greater and greater yields, but isn't it amazing our priorities, 
when we spend $1.8 billion a year on agricultural research, and we send 
$40 billion a year down at the Pentagon for them to make things explode 
louder.
  Now, it is really tragic when you think about the problem of the 
population increase of the planet, not to say anything of the United 
States. By the year 2100, barring an epidemic or a pandemic, we are 
going to be standing shoulder to shoulder on this planet. Yes, people, 
by their very numbers, are polluters. We have to be fed. That means we 
use up our land. We have to be housed. That means we use up our 
resources to build houses. We have to be transported so we have to go 
in an automobile that puts a lot of noxious fumes into the atmosphere 
and uses up our resources at an exponential rate. On and on it goes.
  When you start talking about the problems of the population increase 
of the planet and what it means for our grandchildren--it makes me 
shudder to think about it. I must say I take strong exception to those 
who hold up our foreign aid spending to all of the countries who have 
family planning programs, when every single country that has a family 
planning program shows the abortion rate goes down. But I don't want to 
get into the abortion debate either. I am simply saying you can shove 
this problem under the rug, which we have been doing a magnificent job 
of for the last many years, or you can face up to it as China has tried 
to do.
  In 1978, when I was in China the last time, they had a family 
planning program going there. Since that time, it has worked partially 
in the big urban areas. It is not working in the rural areas. They 
still have a culture there that you have to have children to help you 
till the crops. You have to have children to help you do everything, so 
they keep having children.
  Mrs. Bumpers, just came back from Africa. She was over there trying 
to help Africans immunize their children. She was in Zimbabwe and the 
Ivory Coast. She said it was the most exhilarating experience she ever 
had in her life, watching mothers bring their babies through the hot 
sands and dust, into these clinics, where they were having what they 
called national immunization days. She began to give polio doses 
herself. She said it was the most gratifying experience she had ever 
had.

  She was amazed with some of the progress they are making in Africa. 
One of the things they have done on the Ivory Coast is cut the birth 
rate, with family planning, from six per woman to four.
  Now, here is a relatively primitive country called the Ivory Coast in 
Africa, which seems to have a better grip on what the real problems of 
the world are than we have. There is more to that. I don't want to take 
any more time, Mr. President. I have said all I can say about what I 
consider to be the real problems. One of the frustrating things is--and 
I don't say this with any degree of acrimony or bitterness at all, and 
it has been a great honor to be one of the less than 1,800 people who 
ever served in the U.S. Senate, and I will leave here with a heart full 
of gratitude, hopefully strengthened by great relationships with many 
colleagues. But I am disenchanted, to some extent, about our inability 
and our unwillingness to deal with some of the real problems. We do a 
great job of dealing with the politics of problems, but we have a tough 
time facing up to the fact that our children are not being well 
educated.
  I am dismayed when I think about the $50 billion or $60 billion 
surplus we are supposed to have at the end of this year and people are 
talking about tax cuts. I would not have any objection to that, Mr. 
President, if that tax cut went to the lower-income groups in this 
country who are still being relegated to last place. This is a personal 
opinion. One of the reasons the stock market has gone crazy in the last 
several years is because there is so much money floating around in this 
country, people have no choice but to invest it. They are not going to 
put it into T-bills when they can put it in Microsoft, or something 
else that will pay 20 to 30 percent, or even more, than a 6-percent 
bond will. But I can tell you that all of this money that exists in 
this country that people largely have made out of the stock market has 
not filtered down to the bottom 40 percent of the people in this 
country.
  I would vote for another minimum wage increase because every 
statistic I have seen has shown that, No. 1, you don't lose jobs--the 
traditional argument made against it--and, No. 2, this country is not 
going to be what it ought to be unless we bring other people up. Every 
statistic I have seen in the last year is that the rich are still 
getting richer and the poor, by comparison, are getting poorer.
  I would be hard-pressed to vote for a tax cut for the well-off when 
children are going to school all over Arkansas, being taught by 
teachers who go into teaching at an entry level of $20,000. Do you know 
what I think, Mr. President? I think teaching is the toughest job in 
America. I would rather clean the streets of Washington, DC, and carry 
garbage than teach school. One of the reasons I feel that way is 
because I married a schoolteacher and I know what they go through. It 
is the toughest job in the world. They go through 4 years of college 
and get a degree in education and go into the schools of my State at an 
entry level of $20,000. If they are lucky, the next year they will get 
a cost-of-living increase.
  My daughter, who is my pride and joy, is with a law firm downtown. 
She is not going to teach for $25,000 or $30,000 a year, and she would 
be a magnificent teacher. There are people all over the country--men 
and women--who would be great teachers, who are not going into the 
teaching profession because it simply doesn't pay enough. When you 
compound the fact--if you agree with me that it is the toughest job on 
earth--it surely doesn't pay enough.
  I was doing an interview this afternoon with a prominent author here 
in Washington who is writing a book. We were talking about the American 
people and what is going on. There is something going on in this 
country that nobody really quite understands. I don't. I probably 
wasn't very helpful to him because I didn't have any brilliant analysis 
of what is going on in the country. But I said, ``I think the 
disenchantment is more a result of the way people feel that the 
educational system is failing them than anything else.'' I also believe 
that television, which ought to be this magnificent medium of 
communicating and making our children so much smarter, is failing us 
miserably.
  Mr. President, I have gone from China to population to schoolteaching 
in all my meanderings here. But I can tell you there isn't anything 
wrong with this country that setting our priorities straight would not 
cure. Until we have an educated electorate, and until we provide an 
education for every child in this country, not just an education at the 
elementary and secondary level, but at the college level, until we make 
the commitment that every kid in this country gets a college education, 
or at least is not denied a college education for lack of money, don't 
talk to me about tax cuts.
  What makes a country great? What makes a country great is how well 
their people are educated and, therefore, how civil their people are to 
each other, what their conduct is. When I see people engaged in certain 
kinds of conduct you want to ask them, ``Why are you doing that?'' They 
do it because their parents or nobody else ever told them not to. I 
could sit here and list all day long the things that are my favorite 
pet peeves. I am always saying to Betty, ``I wonder why that kid did 
that.'' She says, ``Because nobody ever told him better.''
  So Mr. President, I certainly am not giving up on this Nation. The 
people of

[[Page S6562]]

this country are rhapsodic about one thing, and that is that we got our 
budget house in order. The fact that we have a surplus this year is 
nothing short of a miracle, and the people know it. But if we start 
spending it and squandering it instead of dealing with the problems we 
still have we will be back in trouble. The other day, Mr. President, 
you were in the Appropriations Committee when I made a short speech 
about what a tough time we had crafting this agriculture bill.
  I said, ``You know we don't have any money to do much of anything.''
  A couple of weeks ago, I had a delegation come to me from the 
Mississippi River delta, the poorest part of my State. Four communities 
described graphically for me how, every time they have a heavy rain, 
sewage runs down the street and runs down the ditches. The health 
consequences of that are absolutely incalculable. I said, ``I have 
looked high and low, looked everywhere in this budget, and every other 
budget, trying to find $2.8 million to alleviate this problem.'' 
Because I made that speech there in the committee, I think I about got 
it solved. But I can tell you, that is going to be the greatest thing 
that has ever happened to those people in those communities. When I was 
a kid, we didn't understand why people died of typhoid fever in the 
summer because the outhouse was just 10 steps away from the water well. 
That is sort of the situation these people are living in.
  Mr. President, we have a lot of unmet needs in this country, and I am 
not voting for any tax cuts until we address those.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I do not have an amendment. I simply 
want to discuss very briefly an issue that I may later offer an 
amendment on to this legislation, and it is an issue that I understand 
you are also interested in, Mr. President. It is concerning the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Chairwoman of the Commission, 
Brooksley Born, is attempting to reverse the current policy at the CFTC 
that Congress directed over 5 years ago.
  Mr. President, the issue is this. We have a $28 trillion swaps market 
in the United States. The vast majority of these swaps are privately 
negotiated contracts. They are not traded on any exchange; they are 
privately negotiated contracts. The business has grown rapidly in the 
last few years. It has become an important financial tool for 
institutions to hedge their risks. But, clearly, it is not a trading 
issue, this is a--it is redundant to say--privately traded issue. These 
are swaps between those companies.
  Yet, the CFTC now has under review a ``concept release''--a good 
bureaucratic term--a ``concept release'' to regulate these privately 
negotiated instruments. Essentially, the CFTC wants to vastly broaden 
its regulatory authority over a multitrillion-dollar market. The 
problem is that these are negotiations, again, between private firms. 
Furthermore, if one of the parties in the contract is a bank, these 
products are regulated by the bank regulators. And we do not need a 
dual regulation.
  The result of the CFTC action will be that a trillion-dollar industry 
will, very simply, be driven out of this country. It will be driven 
overseas.
  In case anyone thinks that this is just my opinion, in a move that I 
have rarely seen in Washington--we certainly haven't been seeing 
lately--in an incredible move, Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Rubin, and 
Secretary Arthur Levitt issued a joint statement saying they have 
``grave concerns'' with what is being proposed to be done by Ms. Born.
  How often do you see the three principal financial regulators of the 
country come together to express grave concern over an issue and rebuke 
another financial regulator? You simply do not see it happen. They are 
concerned, and the potential for great loss to this country is just 
tantamount to it happening.
  The Treasury Department has even gone to such lengths as to formally 
send legislation to the Congress to stop this potential regulation. It 
is the Treasury Department under Secretary Rubin, and they may even go 
to such lengths to stop it.
  I want to, if I may, Mr. President, read a joint statement. This 
statement was issued by Mr. Rubin, Mr. Greenspan, and Mr. Levitt.

       On May 7, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
     (``CFTC'') issued a concept release on over-the-counter 
     derivatives. We have grave concerns about this action and its 
     possible consequences. The OTC derivatives market is a large 
     and important global market. We seriously question the scope 
     of the CFTC's jurisdiction in this area, and we are very 
     concerned about reports that the CFTC's action may increase 
     the legal uncertainty concerning certain types of OTC 
     derivatives.
       The concept release raises important public policy issues 
     that should be dealt with the entire regulatory community 
     working with Congress, and we are prepared to pursue, as 
     appropriate, legislation that would provide greater certainty 
     concerning the legal status of OTC derivatives.

  Furthermore, Chairman Jim Leach of the House Banking Committee has 
introduced similar legislation.
  To me, the agreement of this number of people on one issue is 
unprecedented. We need to wake up and realize that we have a rogue 
regulator--I know of no nicer way to put it--at the CFTC that is 
threatening to drive a trillion-dollar business out of the United 
States.
  My amendment, if I introduce it, would simply state that no final 
rule on this can be promulgated during fiscal year 1999. This is the 
amendment that I have contemplated.
  Mr. President, this is a very complex subject. We do not need to rush 
to judgment. It needs thorough and careful review. It is not the type 
of thing that attracts a lot of attention on the Senate or the House 
floor. As we said, it is not a subject that is easily understood. But 
even for those who do not understand it, Secretary Rubin, Chairman 
Greenspan, and Secretary Levitt all agree with House Banking Committee 
Chairman Jim Leach that it is a dangerous direction that Ms. Born is 
heading and one that we should not be going in.
  It is simply time for us to stop and give us a year to review the 
implications of what she is talking about. And, further, the CFTC is up 
for reauthorization next year anyway. If it needs to be done, that 
would be the time to do it, and we could address it at that time.
  Mr. President, I thank you. I look forward to working with you on 
this program.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2729

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Daschle) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2729.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment (No. 2729) is printed in today's Record 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________