[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6641-S6658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the unfinished 
business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2057) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal 
     year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Feinstein amendment No. 2405, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the Indian nuclear tests.
       Brownback amendment No. 2407 (to amendment No. 2405), to 
     repeal a restriction on the provision of certain assistance 
     and other transfers to Pakistan.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent that the cost estimate for S. 
2057 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1998.
     Hon. Strom Thurmond,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2057, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosure.

        CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE, JUNE 9, 1998

 S. 2057: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, As 
   Reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on May 11, 1998


                                SUMMARY

       S. 2057 would authorize appropriations for 1999 for the 
     military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the 
     Department of Energy (DOE). It also would prescribe personnel 
     strengths for each active duty and selected reserve component 
     of the U.S. armed forces. Assuming appropriation of the

[[Page S6642]]

     amounts authorized for 1999, CBO estimates that enacting S. 
     2057 would result in additional discretionary spending from 
     1999 appropriations of $269 billion over the 1999-2003 
     period, including $1.9 billion that would be designated as 
     emergency funding. In addition, the bill contains provisions 
     that would lower the cost of discretionary defense programs 
     over the 2000-2003 period by about $4.8 billion.
       The bill would affect direct spending through land 
     conveyances, the sale of naval vessels, loss of receipts from 
     the auction of the electromagnetic spectrum, changes to 
     military retirement and survivor benefit programs, and other 
     provisions. CBO estimates that the bill would raise direct 
     spending by $71 million in 1999 and by $1.1 billion over the 
     1999-2003 period. It also would generate receipts from assets 
     sales totaling $251 million in 1999. The combined effect 
     would be to lower spending by $180 million in 1999 but raise 
     it by $826 million over the 1999-2003 period. Because the 
     bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures 
     would apply.
       S. 2057 would require some airlines to extend federal 
     government rates to reservists traveling to and from their 
     inactive duty stations. This requirement may be a private-
     sector mandate as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA). However, the cost of this provision would be small, 
     and well below the threshold established by UMRA. UMRA 
     excludes from application of that act legislative provisions 
     that are necessary for the national security. CBO has 
     determined that all other provisions in S. 2057 either fit 
     within this exclusion or do not contain intergovernmental 
     mandates as defined by UMRA.


                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2057 is shown in Table 
     1, assuming that the bill will be enacted by October 1, 1998.

                    Authorizations of Appropriations

       The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling 
     $273.5 billion in 1999 for military programs in DoD and DOE. 
     The bill would authorize $271.6 billion for ongoing programs 
     and $1.9 billion on an emergency basis to cover the 
     incremental costs of operations in and around Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina (see Table 2). These costs would fall within 
     budget function 050 (national defense). The estimate assumes 
     that the amounts authorized will be appropriated for 1999. 
     Outlays are estimated based on historical spending patterns. 
     In addition, S. 2057 would authorize specific appropriations 
     for other budget functions: $117 million for the Naval 
     Petroleum Reserve (function 270); $71 million for the Armed 
     Forces Retirement Home (function 700).
       The bill also contains provisions that would affect various 
     costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the 
     fiscal year 1999 authorization and by authorizations in 
     future years. Table 3 contains estimates of these amounts. In 
     addition to the costs covered by the 1999 authorizations in 
     the bill, these provisions would lower estimated costs by 
     $4.8 billion over the 2000-2003 period. The following 
     sections describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 
     3 and provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
     Endstrength
       The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of 
     $70.4 billion for military pay and allowances in 1999. Under 
     the bill, the authorized endstrengths in 1999 for active-duty 
     personnel and personnel in the Selected Reserve would total 
     1,395,780 and 877,094, respectively. Compared to the minimum 
     endstrength level set in current law--1,431,379 active-duty 
     personnel--the endstrength specified in S. 2057 would lower 
     personnel costs by $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion annually.
       Also the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 
     1999 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would 
     cost about $69 million and would fall under budget function 
     400, transportation.
       Grade Structure. Section 415 would change the grade 
     structure of active-duty personnel in support of the 
     reserves. This change would not increase the overall 
     endstrength, but would result in more promotions. The 
     provision would cost about $3 million a year.

           TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 2057 AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1998         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION ACTION
 
Spending Under Current Law for
 Defense Programs:
    Budget Authority \1\..........      270,786            0            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays.............      269,058       91,071       33,952       15,117        6,586        3,047
Proposed Changes:
    Regular Authorizations:
        Authorization Level.......            0      271,867            0            0            0            0
        Estimated Outlays.........            0      179,519       54,255       20,578        9,103        3,590
    Emergency Authorizations:
        Authorization Level.......            0        1,859            0            0            0            0
        Estimated Outlays.........            0        1,533          283           32            8            0
Spending Under S. 2057 for Defense
 Programs:
    Authorization Level \1\.......      270,786      273,726            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays.............      269,058      272,123       88,490       35,727       15,697        6,637
 
                                                 DIRECT SPENDING
 
Estimated Budget Authority........            0           71           74          264          508          160
Estimated Outlays.................            0           71           74          264          508          160
 
                                                 ASSET SALES \2\
 
Estimated Budget Authority........            0         -251        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)
Estimated Outlays.................            0         -251        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1998 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
\2\ Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, proceeds from a nonroutine asset sale may be counted for purposes of
  pay-as-you-go scoring only if the sale would entail no net financial cost to the government. CBO estimates
  that the nonroutine asset sales that would result from enacting S. 2057 would generate a net savings to the
  government, and therefore that the proceeds would be counted for pay-as-you-go purposes.
\3\ CBO does not have enough information to estimate the budgetary impact of land conveyances that would be
  authorized under S. 2057.
 
Note: Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 505 (national defense), except for certain other items
  as noted in the text.


  TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1999, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE
                                           COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
    Authorization Level........................       70,434            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................       66,472        3,451          211           70            0
Operation and Maintenance:
    Authorization Level........................       94,314            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................       71,370       17,474        3,062        1,073          439
Procurement:
    Authorization Level........................       49,782            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................       11,601       14,107       12,469        6,446        2,586
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
    Authorization Level........................       36,271            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................       18,882       13,306        2,730          689          241
Military Construction and Family Housing:
    Authorization Level........................        8,277            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................        2,630        2,536        1,497          795          255
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    Authorization Level........................       11,918            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................        7,893        3,266          615           48           48
Other Accounts:
    Authorization Level........................          802            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................          330          168          113           41           40
General Transfer Authority:
    Authorization Level........................            0            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................          280          -60         -120          -60          -20
Subtotal--Regular Authorizations:
    Authorization Level........................      271,798            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................      179,457       54,248       20,578        9,103        3,590

[[Page S6643]]

 
Emergency Authorizations:
    Authorization Level........................        1,859            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................        1,533          283           32            8            0
Total:
    Authorization Level........................      273,657            0            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................      180,990       54,531       20,610        9,111        3,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN S. 2057 AS REPORTED BY THE
                                       SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endstrengths:
    Department of Defense:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........       -1,485       -1,537       -1,595       -1,647       -1,700
        Estimated Outlays......................       -1,402       -1,524       -1,585       -1,639       -1,690
    Coast Guard Reserve:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........           69            0            0            0            0
        Estimated Outlays......................           62            7            0            0            0
    Grade Structure:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........            3            3            3            3            3
        Estimated Outlays......................            3            3            3            3            3
Compensation and Benefits (DoD):
    Military Pay Raise in 1999:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........            6            6            6            6            6
        Estimated Outlays......................            6            6            6            6            6
    Expiring Bonuses and Allowances:
        Enlistment/reenlistment Bonuses
         (Active):
            Estimated Authorization Level......            0           43           13           12            9
            Estimated Outlays..................            0           41           15           12            9
        Aviation and Nuclear Special Pay:
            Estimated Authorization Level......            0           23            8            8            7
            Estimated Outlays..................            0           21            9            8            7
        Various Bonuses (Reserve):
            Estimated Authorization Level......            0           14           11            8            4
            Estimated Outlays..................            0           13           12            9            4
        Special Pay for Nurses:
            Estimated Authorization Level......            0            3            0            0            0
            Estimated Outlays..................            0            3            0            0            0
    Voluntary Separation/Early Retirement:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........            0          160          160          160          160
        Estimated Outlays......................            0          155          160          160          160
    Benefits for Involuntary Separations:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........            0           40           40           40           40
        Estimated Outlays......................            0           38           40           40           40
    Recruiting Incentives:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........           32           28           22           20           20
        Estimated Outlays......................           32           28           22           20           20
    Termination of Survivor Premiums:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........           21           22           22           23           23
        Estimated Outlays......................           21           22           22           23           23
    Changes in Reenlistment Bonuses:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........           10            6            4            4            2
        Estimated Outlays......................           10            6            4            4            2
    Education Loan Repayment:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........           10           10            5            0            0
        Estimated Outlays......................           10           10            5            0            0
Incentive Payments to Civilian Employees:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............            0           42           41          154          125
    Estimated Outlays..........................            0           42           41          154          125
Health Care Provisions:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............           14           25           26           27            5
    Estimated Outlays..........................           14           25           26           27            5
Long-Term Charter of a Naval Vessel:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............           77           24            0            0            0
    Estimated Outlays..........................            4           10           11           10           11
Limitation of Price Preference for SDBs:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............           -8           -8           -8           -9           -9
    Estimated Outlays..........................           -8           -8           -8           -9           -9
Other Provisions:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............            5            5            9            6            5
    Estimated Outlays..........................            5            5            9            6            5
Total Authorization of Appropriations:
    Estimated Authorization Level..............       -1,246       -1,091       -1,233       -1,185       -1,300
    Estimated Outlays..........................       -1,243       -1,097       -1,208       -1,116       -1,279
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For every item in this table except one, the 1999 impacts are included in the amounts specifically
  authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of
  endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.

     Compensation and Benefits
       S. 2057 contains several provisions that would affect 
     military compensation and benefits.
       Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 3.1 
     percent or $1.2 billion in 1999. Because the pay raise would 
     be the same as under current law, section 601 would have no 
     incremental costs. Section 602 would increase the pay rates 
     for cadets and midshipmen at the service academies. The 
     incremental cost of this provision would be $6 million 
     annually.
       Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would 
     extend for three months DoD's authority to pay certain 
     bonuses and allowances to current personnel. The authority is 
     scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 1999, but in 
     some cases renewing authorities for even brief periods 
     results in costs over several years because payments are made 
     in installments. CBO estimates that payment of enlistment and 
     reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $43 
     million in fiscal year 2000. The cost of extending special 
     payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would 
     be $23 million in 2000. Payment authorities for various 
     bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would total $14 
     million in 2000. We estimate that authorities to make special 
     payments to nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and 
     nurse anesthetists would cost $3 million in 2000. The 
     estimated cost of all these bonuses and allowances is $163 
     million over the 2000-2003 period.
       Voluntary Separation Benefits and Early Retirement. Section 
     522 would extend for four years DoD's authority to separate 
     personnel by paying voluntary separation benefits and 
     offering early retirement. Because DoD has made relatively 
     little use of the voluntary separation benefit in recent 
     years, CBO estimates the cost of extending that authority 
     would be less than $10 million a year. However, recent 
     experience indicates that early retirement incentives may be 
     used more often. CBO estimates that DoD would spend about 
     $150 million annually to cover the costs of extending an 
     option to retire early.
       Benefits for Involuntary Separations. Section 522 would 
     also extend for four years transitional benefits for former 
     military personnel who have left service involuntarily. These 
     benefits include travel and transportation allowances, 
     payments for storing household goods, and access to health 
     care, commissaries, and family housing. CBO estimates that 
     costs for extending these benefits would total $40 million a 
     year starting in 2000.

[[Page S6644]]

       Recruiting Incentives. The bill would change restrictions 
     governing two recruiting incentives that would be extended 
     through January 1, 2000. Section 616 would increase the 
     maximum enlistment bonus in the Army from $4,000 to $6,000 
     for individuals who enlist for three years and score 50 or 
     above on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Based on 
     current recruitment goals, CBO estimates that costs for 
     enlistment bonuses would increase by $4 million in 1999 and 
     about $2 million in 2000. Under current law, enlistees cannot 
     receive both the college fund benefits and an enlistment 
     bonus. Section 619 would also allow certain enlistees to 
     receive both recruitment incentives, which CBO estimates 
     would cost $8 million in 1999, $6 million in 2000, and $2 
     million in 2001.
       In addition, the maximum benefit from the military college 
     funds under section 618 would increase in 1999 from $40,000 
     to $50,000, at an estimated cost to the military pay accounts 
     of $20 million a year.
       Termination of Premiums for Survivor Benefits. Under 
     section 631 a military retiree participating in the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan (SBP) would stop paying premiums after paying 
     them for 30 years and reaching 70 years of age. This 
     provision would increase the payment that DoD makes to the 
     Military Retirement Trust Fund for accruing retirement 
     benefits. CBO estimates that those costs would average about 
     $22 million a year over the first several years. The 
     provision would also lead to increases in direct spending as 
     discussed below.
       Changes in Reenlistment Bonus Eligibility. The services 
     extend reenlistment bonuses to personnel in specialities 
     characterized by inadequate manning, low retention, and high 
     replacement costs. The maximum bonus payment under current 
     law is $45,000, but no more than ten percent of the bonuses 
     can exceed $20,000. Section 615 would remove the ten percent 
     restriction and allow the services to extend reenlistment 
     bonuses to reserve members performing active guard and 
     reserve duty. CBO estimates that these changes would cost 
     about $10 million in 1999 and $26 million over the 1999-2003 
     period.
       Caps on Education Loan Repayment. The bill would increase 
     the authorized caps on loans that DoD may repay for health 
     professionals serving in the Selected Reserve and who have 
     critical skills. The repayment caps would increase from 
     $3,000 per year and $20,000 in total to $20,000 and $50,000, 
     respectively. The provision would cost an estimated $10 
     million in 1999 and $25 million over the 1999-2003 period.
     Incentive Payments to Civilian Employees
       CBO estimates that together sections 1103 and 1104 would 
     raise discretionary costs by $362 million and direct spending 
     by $343 million over the 1999-2003 period. Section 1103 would 
     extend DoD's authority to offer incentive payments to 
     civilian employees who voluntarily retire or resign. This 
     authority, currently scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal 
     year 2001, would be extended through fiscal year 2003. 
     Section 1104 would authorize DoD to target offers of early 
     retirement to specific groups of employees. DoD frequently 
     offers incentive payments and early retirement to the same 
     employees, and has found that the two methods are more 
     effective when used together.
       As a result, the net impact of enacting both sections 1103 
     and 1104, on both DoD workforce reductions and the budget, is 
     greater than the individual impact of each provision.
       Based on information provided by DoD and the Office of 
     Personnel Management (OPM), CBO estimates that section 1103 
     would increase discretionary spending by $244 million in 2002 
     and 2003. Section 1104 would increase discretionary costs by 
     $76 million between 2000 and 2003. If both provisions were 
     enacted, discretionary spending would increase by an 
     additional $42 million in 2002 and 2003. These costs reflect 
     additional incentive payments and deposits to the Civil 
     Service Trust Fund that DoD would be required to make for 
     each employee who accepts an incentive payment. These figures 
     also incorporate savings that DoD would realize due to lower 
     spending on severance payments associated with involuntary 
     separations. Additional information about the budgetary 
     impact of these provisions is provided below in the 
     discussion of impacts on direct spending.
     Military Health Care Programs and Benefits
       Title VII contains several provisions that would affect 
     health care programs and benefits although only a few would 
     have a budgetary impact.
       Demonstration Projects. Section 707 would require DoD to 
     establish three demonstration projects involving health 
     benefits for certain beneficiaries who are eligible for 
     Medicare and who live 40 miles or more from a military 
     treatment facility (MTF), a so-called catchment area. 
     Specifically, one project would offer mail-order pharmacy 
     benefits; another would offer Tricare as supplemental 
     coverage to Medicare; and a third would offer supplemental 
     coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program 
     (FEHBP). The bill would cap DoD's costs at $60 million a year 
     for the term of the demonstrations. The budgetary impact of 
     section 707 would include both an increase in spending 
     subject to appropriation and direct spending.
       CBO estimates that DoD would spend $14 million in 1999 and 
     $104 million over the 1999-2003 period for the demonstrations 
     of providing mail-order pharmacy benefits and Tricare 
     coverage as a supplement to Medicare. Those costs would be 
     subject to appropriation. (The direct spending costs of the 
     third demonstration are discussed below with other provisions 
     affecting direct spending.) The estimate assumes that 11,000 
     beneficiaries eligible for Medicare reside in each of six 
     demonstration sites, based on the average number of such 
     individuals living outside catchment areas. This estimate 
     assumes DoD would offer benefits under each project to 
     roughly the same number of beneficiaries. (Thus, DoD's 
     spending on each project would depend on the per capita cost 
     of the benefits offered.) Alternatively, DoD could design the 
     demonstration to spend roughly the same amount on each 
     project. If this were the case, DoD would spend roughly $40 
     million annually on these two projects.
       Dependents' Dental Premiums. Under current law, 
     participating dependents of active-duty personnel must pay 
     part of the premium for dental care coverage, but the amount 
     is capped at $20 per month per family. Section 701 would 
     allow DoD to adjust the participants' premiums by the 
     military pay raise. CBO estimates that this provision would 
     reduce DoD's costs by a negligible amount in 1999 but that 
     savings would increase by about $500,000 annually thereafter, 
     totaling $6 million over the 1999-2002 period.
       Automatic Enrollment and Reenrollment in Tricare Prime. 
     Under current law, if dependents of active-duty personnel 
     want to join Tricare Prime, they must enroll each year. 
     Enrollees can choose either military or civilian primary care 
     providers or they may be assigned to civilian providers if an 
     MTF reaches its enrollment capacity. Section 703 would 
     provide that dependents of members in grades E-4 or below who 
     live outside a catchment area be automatically enrolled in 
     Tricare Prime at the MTF. They would remain enrolled at the 
     MTF until they elect to disenroll or become ineligible for 
     coverage.
       Although automatic enrollment could encourage some 
     dependents who do not currently rely on military health care 
     to join Tricare, CBO believes that the costs to DoD would be 
     negligible because nearly all dependents of members in grades 
     E-4 and below already use the military health system. But, if 
     automatic enrollment encourages current participants in 
     Tricare Extra and Tricare Standard to get care from the MTFs 
     instead, then DoD would incur more costs in its direct care 
     system. However, only a small part of this population would 
     be likely to change providers based solely on automatic 
     enrollment, and because Tricare contractors would experience 
     lower health care costs from shifts to the MTFs, at least 
     some of DoD's extra costs would be offset by adjustments to 
     the price of the managed care contracts.
       Authority to Provide Tricare Coverage. Under current law 
     beneficiaries lose eligibility for Tircare once they are 
     eligible for Medicare. Section 704 would allow DoD to extend 
     Tricare eligibility through June 30, 1999, for certain 
     beneficiaries who have become eligible for Medicare because 
     of a disability but who have not enrolled in Medicare Part B. 
     CBO estimates that DoD would spend about $3 million in health 
     care costs for these individuals, based on information from 
     DoD on the number of affected beneficiaries. Information from 
     DoD suggests that its has been willing to pay these expenses 
     even though current law does not require it. Thus, assuming 
     that DoD would continue to pay these costs under current law, 
     this provision would have no net budgetary impact.
     Long-Term Charter of Naval Vessels
       Section 1012 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
     charter three vessels in support of submarine rescue, escort, 
     and towing. Two of the vessels would be leased through 2005 
     and a third vessel would be leased through 2012. The charter 
     would be a capital lease that would cost about $101 million 
     through 2003. Because two charters would begin in 1999 and 
     the third would begin in 2000, the estimated 
     authorizations is counted in those two years. The estimate 
     is based on information provided by the Navy and the owner 
     of the vessels.
     Limitation of the Price Preference for SDBs
       Under current law, DoD may enter into contracts with small 
     disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) to pay prices that exceed the 
     fair market price in order to facilitate awarding at least 
     five percent of its contracts to SDBs. Section 803 would deny 
     that authority except when DoD failed to reach that goal in 
     the preceding fiscal year. Information from DoD suggests that 
     contracts awarded to SDBs in recent years have exceeded the 
     goal and have resulted in annual price premiums totaling 
     between $7.5 million and $10 million. On this basis, CBO 
     estimates that section 803 would save $8 million a year.
     Other Provisions.
       The bill contains several other provisions that would have 
     a budgetary impact totaling about $5 million annually.
       DARPA Personnel Management. Section 1105 would authorize 
     the Secretary of defense to appoint not more than 20 eminent 
     experts in science and engineering to work in research and 
     development projects administered by the Defense Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The authorization would 
     extend over the five-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment S. 2057. CBO estimates that implementing section 
     1105 would cost $3 million a year over the 1999-2003 period.
       Pay Increase for Safety Personnel at Defense Nuclear 
     Facilities. Under current law, the salary of safety personnel 
     at defense nuclear facilities may not exceed the rate of pay 
     or Level IV of the Executive Schedule. Section 3142 would 
     change that limit to Level III, an

[[Page S6645]]

     increase of about $7,500 per person per year. CBO estimates 
     that this provision would raise DOE's personnel costs by less 
     than $2 million a year for about 200 individuals.
       National Defense Panel. Section 905 would authorize the 
     Secretary of Defense to establish a National Defense Panel in 
     2001 and every four years there after to recommend a 10- and 
     20-year defense plan. The panel would consist of a chairman 
     and eight other individuals from the private sector who are 
     recognized experts in national security matters. The chairman 
     would have the authority to hire an executive director and 
     staff. CBO estimates that implementing section 905 would cost 
     $4 million in 2001 and $1 million in 2002.
       Reductions in Headquarters Staff. Section 904 would require 
     the Secretary of Defense to reduce staffing in headquarters 
     and various DoD agencies by the end of fiscal year 2003. 
     Because total military personnel are determined by end 
     strength requirements, CBO assumes that the provision would 
     mainly affect civilian employees. Starting from the 
     employment level of October 1, 1996, section 904 would 
     require the elimination of approximately 33,000 civilian 
     positions at estimated annual savings of about $2.1 billion 
     once the reduction is fully accomplished. Because such 
     reductions are occurring under current law, CBO does not 
     estimate additional savings under section 904.

                   Director Spending and Asset Sales

       S. 2057 contains several provisions that would affect 
     direct spending and asset sales. As shown in Table 4, the 
     bill would raise direct spending by $71 million in 1999 and 
     $1,077 million over the 1999-2003 period. CBO estimates that 
     it would raise receipts from asset sales by about $251 
     million in 1999.
     Forgone Spectrum Receipts.
       CBO estimates that the provisions in section 1062 regarding 
     licenses for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum would 
     result in a loss of offsetting receipts that could range from 
     a few hundred million to several billion dollars over the 
     1999-2003 period. Existing law requires the transfer of 
     certain frequencies from federal to nonfederal jurisdiction, 
     and the subsequent assignment of licenses to use those 
     frequencies to private entities through auctions conducted by 
     the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Under current 
     law, the costs of relocating federal users are a federal 
     responsibility and would be financed during appropriated 
     funds. Under this bill, nonfederal entities would be 
     obligated to compensate federal agencies in advance for costs 
     incurred to relocate out of the portion of the spectrum being 
     licensed for commercial use. Agency spending of the receipts 
     collected from the licensees would be subject to 
     appropriation.
       The provisions in section 1062 could apply to spectrum 
     auctions that are projected to generate about $9 billion in 
     receipts over the 1999-2003 period under current law. 
     Obligating prospective bidders to pay the relocation costs 
     associated with specific licenses would significantly depress 
     interest in many, if not most, of those auctions. For 
     example, recent reports have suggested that relocating 
     certain DoD functions could cost an average of about 20 cents 
     per megahertz per person, which is more than half the average 
     price received in 1997 for wireless telecommunications 
     licenses ( the D, E, and F block auctions). Consequently, CBO 
     estimates that offsetting receipts from spectrum licenses 
     would be 5 percent to 10 percent lower than under current law 
     because of the uncertainty associated with the added 
     liability to the prospective licenses. In addition, CBO 
     expects that the FCC would not receive bids for some portions 
     of the spectrum because the projected cost of relocating 
     federal users out of certain spectrum would likely exceed the 
     market value of some licenses. As a result, we estimate that 
     enacting section 1062 would reduce offsetting receipts by a 
     total of $800 million over the next five years. The loss of 
     receipts could be significantly higher, depending on the 
     extent to which bidders lack confidence in the estimates of 
     their liability for relocation costs. Finally, CBO 
     anticipates that some auctions would be postponed to allow 
     time for federal agencies to finalize cost estimates and 
     develop procedures for releasing information to bidders. Such 
     delays would reduce auction receipts in 1999 but would have 
     no significant net effect over time.

                              TABLE 4.--DIRECT SPENDING AND ASSET SALES IN S. 2057
                      [By fiscal year, budget authority and outlays in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 DIRECT SPENDING
Forgone Spectrum Receipts......................          100           75          200          400           25
Incentive Payments to Civilian Employees:
    Section 1103 incentives....................            0            0            0           -9           24
    Section 1104 incentives....................            0           10           64           99           75
    Interactive effects........................            0            0            0           15           65
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal...............................            0           10           64          105          164
Premiums for Survivor Benefits.................           -5           -5           -5           -5           -5
FEHB Demonstration Project.....................            3           30           41           44           12
Spending of Travel Rebates.....................            2            2            2            2            2
Leases of Naval Vessels........................          -29          -38          -38          -38          -38
Land Conveyance Spending.......................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Direct Spending......................           71           74          264          508          160
 
                                                 ASSET SALES \2\
 
Sale of Naval Vessels..........................         -151            0            0            0            0
Stockpile Sales................................         -100            0            0            0            0
Land Conveyances...............................        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Asset Sales..........................         -251        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)        (\3\)
 
                                         DIRECT SPENDING AND ASSET SALES
 
    Total......................................         -180           74          264          508          160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO does not have enough information to estimate the direct spending from land conveyances in S. 2057. Some
  provisions would authorize spending from the proceeds of certain asset sales, and although proceeds and
  spending would cancel each other over time they would not do so on a yearly basis. Another provision would
  authorize a sale with payment delayed for 10 years; that provision would have a subsidy cost under credit
  reform.
\2\ Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, proceeds from a nonroutine asset sale may be counted for purposes of
  pay-as-you-go scoring only if the sale would entail no net financial cost to the government. CBO estimates
  that the nonroutine asset sales that would result from enacting S. 2057 would generate a net savings to the
  government, and therefore that the proceeds would be counted for pay-as-you-go purposes.
\3\ CBO does not have enough information to estimate the budgetary impact of land conveyances that would be
  authorized under S. 2057.

     Incentive Payments to Civilian Employees
       In addition to their impact on discretionary spending 
     (discussed above), sections 1103 and 1104 of the bill would 
     affect direct spending. Enacting both sections 1103 and 1104 
     would increase the number of employees taking incentive 
     payments and retiring early in 2002 and 2003, and the 
     budgetary impact of the two provisions taken together is 
     greater than their separate impacts. CBO estimates that 
     sections 1103 and 1104 would raise direct spending by about 
     $343 million (in budget functions 600 and 950) over the 1999-
     2003 period.
       Section 1103. This provision would allow DoD to offer 
     incentive payments to employees who voluntarily retire or 
     resign in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These payments would 
     induce some employees to retire--and begin receiving federal 
     retirement benefits--earlier than they would otherwise. These 
     additional benefit payments represent direct spending. In 
     later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower 
     than under current law because employees who retire earlier 
     would receive a smaller annuity. By itself, section 1103 
     would increase net direct spending by a total of $15 million 
     in 2002 and 2003.
       Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 
     7,900 employees would accept incentive payments in 2002 and 
     2003 (see Table 5). CBO assumes that about 60 percent of 
     these employees would retire at the same time under current 
     law; the rest would be induced to retire one to two years 
     early. As a result, CBO estimates that spending on federal 
     retirement benefits would increase by $76 million during the 
     2002-2003 period. In later years, annual spending on 
     retirement benefits would decrease by about $15 million 
     relative to current law.
       DoD would be required to make a deposit to the Civil 
     Service Trust Fund equal to 15 percent of final pay for each 
     employee who accepts an incentive payment. CBO estimates that 
     these deposits would be about $7,700 per employee and would 
     increase deposits received by the trust fund by $61 million 
     in 2002-2003.
       Section 1104. Federal agencies that are undergoing a major 
     reorganization or reduction in force may, with the approval 
     of the OPM, offer their employees retirement benefits earlier 
     than would normally be allowed. OPM and agencies have 
     traditionally used a number of criteria to target offers of 
     early retirement to particular groups of employees and thus 
     address agencies' specific personnel needs. In September 
     1997, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 
     Torres v. OPM struck down many of these criteria, ruling that 
     OPM lacked the necessary statutory authority. The recent 
     supplemental appropriations bill (Public Law 105-174) 
     granted OPM the necessary authority, but only through 
     fiscal year 1999. Section 1104 would permanently codify 
     the previous practice for

[[Page S6646]]

     DoD and, in the absence of section 1103, would increase 
     direct spending by $248 million over the 2000-2003 period.

   TABLE 5.--ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF DOD WHO WOULD RECEIVE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS AND TAKE EARLY
                                     RETIREMENT UNDER SECTIONS 1103 AND 1104
                                  [Number of employees receiving each benefit]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           CHANGES UNDER SECTION 1103
 
Incentive Payments.............................            0            0            0        4,300        3,600
Early Retirement...............................            0            0            0          200          200
 
                                           CHANGES UNDER SECTION 1104
 
Incentive Payments.............................            0        2,300        2,300            0            0
Early Retirement...............................            0        2,500        2,500          200          200
 
                                          CHANGES BASED ON INTERACTIONS
 
Incentive Payments.............................            0            0            0        1,700        1,400
Early Retirement...............................            0            0            0        1,300        1,200
 
                                               TOTAL UNDER S. 2057
 
Incentive Payments.............................            0        2,300        2,300        6,000        5,000
Early Retirement...............................            0        2,500        2,500        1,700        1,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: According to information from DoD, it plans to reduce its civilian workforce by 23,000 in 1999; 28,000 in
  2000; 32,000 in 2001; 13,000 in 2002; and 12,000 in 2003. The CBO estimate of the number of employees
  receiving incentive payments and early retirements is also based on information from DoD. Because some
  individuals would receive both benefits, the figures are not additive.

       Based on information from DoD and OPM, CBO believes that 
     the Torres decision will lead agencies to sharply curtail 
     their use of early retirement. Applications since the Torres 
     decision indicate that the number of DoD employees projected 
     to take early retirement are about 30 percent of pre-Torres 
     levels. Without a change in law, DoD will have to rely more 
     heavily on involuntary separations in order to reach its 
     workforce reduction goals from 2000 to 2003. However, some 
     employees who would have taken early retirement before the 
     Torres decision will avoid the involuntary separations and 
     continue working until taking regular retirement in later 
     years. Because these employees will receive a higher annuity 
     than they would have by retiring early, long-term spending on 
     federal retirement benefits should increase in the wake of 
     the Torres decision.
       CBO estimates that section 1104 would increase the number 
     of DoD employees taking early retirement in 2000 and 2001 by 
     5,000, and in 2002 and 2003 by about 400. The increase 
     projected for 2002 and 2003 is much smaller because DoD does 
     not currently have authority to offer incentive payments in 
     those years. Moreover, DoD's workforce reduction targets for 
     2002 and 2003 are smaller than those for 2000 and 2001. The 
     increase in early retirements would raise spending on federal 
     retirement benefits by $289 million between 2000 and 2003. 
     But by 2008, spending on benefits would be $40 million lower 
     than under current law.
       CBO also estimates that many of the 5,000 additional early 
     retirees in 2000 and 2001 would accept incentive payments. 
     For these employees, DoD would make $41 million in additional 
     deposits to the Civil Service Trust Fund.
       Interaction Between Sections. DoD frequently offers 
     incentive payments and early retirement to the same 
     employees, and has found that the two methods are more 
     effective when used together. As a result, the net impact of 
     enacting both sections 1103 and 1104, on DoD workforce 
     reductions and the budget, is greater than the individual 
     impact of each provision. CBO estimates that enactment of 
     both sections would result in an additional 3,100 employees 
     taking incentive payments and an extra 2,500 employees taking 
     early retirement in 2002 and 2003. CBO estimates that taken 
     together the provisions would raise direct spending by about 
     $343 million over the 2000-2003 period or about $80 million 
     more than if they had no interaction.
     Termination of Premiums for Survivor Benefits
       Under section 631, a military retiree participating in the 
     Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) would stop paying premiums after 
     paying them for 30 years and reaching 70 years of age. 
     Because the bill would specify October 1, 2003, as the 
     effective date, no costs would be incurred until that time. 
     However, CBO estimates that some individuals who would stop 
     participating in SBP under current law would continue to pay 
     premiums under section 631. Thus, CBO estimates that the 
     government would collect additional premiums of about $5 
     million a year until 2004 when costs would more than offset 
     the additional receipts. Direct spending costs (in budget 
     function 600) would be about $59 million in 2004 and would 
     reach about $120 million in 2008. Net costs would continue to 
     increase after 2008 before leveling off.
     Demonstration Projects for Medicare-Eligible Military 
         Retirees
       Section 707 would require DoD to establish three 
     demonstration projects to offer certain health benefits to 
     military beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicare. 
     Two of the projects would raise direct spending by a total of 
     $3 million in 1999 and $130 million over the 1999-2003 
     period.
       CBO estimates that the project that would allow coverage 
     under the FEHB program would raise direct spending by $103 
     million from 2000 through 2003. This estimate assumes that 
     DoD offers enrollment to 22,000 individuals residing in two 
     catchment areas and that 70 percent of them would join the 
     program. Most of the increase in direct spending would be 
     DoD's payment of the government contribution toward the FEHB 
     premium. A small portion of the direct spending increase 
     would be higher expenditures in the Medicare program because 
     beneficiaries who acquire supplemental health coverage tend 
     to use more Medicare services overall. CBO estimates that 
     Medicare expenditures (in budget function 570) would rise by 
     $22 million over the 1999-2003 period. There would be no 
     budgetary impact in 1999 from this project because the FEHB 
     project would begin on January 1, 2000, and end on December 
     31, 2003.
       CBO believes that the demonstration project offering 
     Tricare supplemental coverage would also increase Medicare 
     spending. To the extent that this benefit covers most or all 
     of the Medicare deductibles and copayments, spending in the 
     Medicare program would rise for the participants who acquire 
     supplemental coverage through this project. Assuming that if 
     the Tricare supplemental is like the most commonly purchased 
     commercial Medigap plan, which covers the Medicare inpatient 
     deductible and outpatient copayments, then Medicare spending 
     would rise by about $3 million in 1999 and $26 million over 
     the 1999-2003 period.
     Spending From Rebates
       Section 802 would give DoD the authority to spend rebates 
     it receives from travel agencies under contracts with the 
     department. Under current law, DoD is prevented from spending 
     receipts that stem from certain contracts or that are 
     credited to an appropriation that has lapsed. By allowing 
     such funds to be spent, CBO estimates that section 802 would 
     increase outlays by about $2 million a year.
     Leases and Sales of Naval Vessels
       Section 1013 would authorize the transfer of 22 naval 
     vessels to foreign countries: six by grant, eleven by sale, 
     and five by lease or sale. CBO estimates the transfer would 
     increase offsetting receipts by $332 million over the 1999-
     2003 period--$151 million from the sale of ships and $181 
     million in lease payments. The estimate assumes the five 
     ships authorized for transfer by sale or lease will be leased 
     for five years, with quarterly payments beginning in the 
     second quarter of fiscal year 1999.
     Stockpile Sales
       The bill would authorize DoD to sell several materials 
     contained in the National Defense Stockpile to achieve 
     receipts totaling $100 million in 1999. CBO estimates that 
     DoD would be able to sell the materials authorized for 
     disposal and raise the receipts required by the bill.
     Land Conveyances
       The bill contains several provisions that would convey land 
     to nonfederal entities. CBO cannot estimate the aggregate 
     budgetary impact because DoD has not assessed the market 
     value of all the affected properties.
       Section 2821 would authorize the sale of about 5,000 acres 
     to the Indiana Reuse Authority and section 2823 would convey 
     about 1,000 acres to Hamilton County, Tennessee. In each 
     case, payment would occur 10 years after the land was 
     transferred. The delayed payment would represent loans by the 
     United States under procedures established by the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990. The budgetary impact would be the 
     difference between the sale price and the subsidy cost. 
     However, because DoD does not know the market value of the 
     land, CBO cannot estimate the budgetary effects.
       Sections 2821 and 2823 also would grant the Secretary of 
     the Army authority to accept and spend reimbursements from 
     local authorities for administrative expenses incurred during 
     the conveyances. Because receipts and spending would offset 
     each other, this authority would have no net budgetary 
     impact.
       Other sections would either authorize DoD to give or sell 
     parcels of property that GSA might sell under this disposal 
     procedures. CBO estimates that these sections would not have 
     a significant budgetary impact.

[[Page S6647]]

     Other Provisions
       The following provisions would have an insignificant 
     budgetary impact:
       Section 313 would allow DoD to collect landing fees for the 
     use of military airfields by civil aircraft and to use the 
     fees to fund the operation and maintenance of the airfields 
     during fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
       Section 511 would allow National Guard officers to compute 
     their time-in-grade for retirement purposes from the date 
     they are confirmed by the Senate.
       Section 512 would allow reserve generals and flag officers 
     who are involuntarily transferred from active status to 
     retire at a higher grade if they have served two years, 
     instead of three years, at that grade.
       Section 522 would allow a limited number of reserve 
     commissioned officers who retire voluntarily to retire at a 
     higher grade if they have served two years, instead of three 
     years, at that grade.
       Section 632 would require certain retirees to begin paying 
     premiums under the Survivor Benefit Plan the month following 
     a court order.
       Title XXXV would authorize the Panama Canal Commission 
     (PCC) to solicit and accept donations of funds, property, and 
     services from nonfederal sources for the purpose of carrying 
     out promotion activities. This provision would have no net 
     effect on direct spending because any new offsetting 
     collections would be deposited into the FCC's revolving fund, 
     from which they would be spent without further appropriation.
       Section 1052 would allow the superintendents of the 
     military academies to receive and spend funds awarded from 
     research grants.
       Section 1054 would allow DoD to spend reimbursements from 
     companies that damage personal property during shipping if 
     DoD has reimbursed the owners of the property.
       Section 1056 would allow military historical centers to 
     spend the amounts they collect as fees for providing 
     information to the public.
       Section 1061 would increase the amount of funding that 
     would be derived from fees and spent for a program to 
     commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Korean War.
       Title XXIX, the Juniper Butte Range Land Withdrawal Act, 
     would reserve approximately 12,000 acres of public land in 
     Owyhee County, Idaho, for use by the Secretary of the Air 
     Force for training and other defense-related purposes. 
     Implementing title XXIX could lead to a decreased in 
     offsetting receipts from grazing on federal lands, but 
     because implementation would depend on appropriation action, 
     CBO estimates that enactment of title XXIX would not, by 
     itself, affect direct spending or receipts.


                      pay-as-you-go considerations

       Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for 
     legislation affecting direct spending on receipts. The net 
     changes in outlays and governmental receipts that are subject 
     to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 
     For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only 
     the effects in the current year, the budget year, and the 
     succeeding four years are counted.

                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1998       1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays.............          0       -180         74        264        508        160        253        174        119         90         45
Changes in receipts............                                                       Not applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments

       The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) excludes 
     from application of that act legislative provisions that are 
     necessary for the national security. CBO has determined that 
     the provisions in S. 2057 either fit within this exclusion or 
     do not contain intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA.


                 estimated impact on the private sector

       One provision of S. 2057 could impose a new private-sector 
     mandate. Section 623 of title VI would require airlines and 
     other common carriers under contract with the General 
     Services Administration to provide transportation at the 
     contracted federal government rate to reservists traveling to 
     and from their inactive duty training station. To the extent 
     that the contracted government rate is lower than available 
     commercial rates, this provision would reduce carriers' 
     revenues and income. About 700,000 reservists are required to 
     participate in monthly drills and annual training. The annual 
     cost of this provision would be well below the $100 million 
     threshold set by UMRA, since most reservists travel to their 
     training bases by private automobile rather than by common 
     carrier. Furthermore, once the General Services 
     Administration renegotiates its service agreements with the 
     carriers, this provision would become a standard condition of 
     the contract that the carriers accept, and would therefore no 
     longer constitute a private-sector mandate.


                         previous cbo estimate

       On May 12, 1998, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R. 
     3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 
     1999, as ordered reported by the House Committee on National 
     Security.
       Estimate prepared by:
       Federal Cost: The estimates for defense programs were 
     prepared by Valerie Barton (military retirement), Shawn 
     Bishop (health programs), Kent Christensen (military 
     construction and other defense), Jeannette Deshong (military 
     and civilian personnel), Raymond Hall (procurement, RDT&E, 
     stockpile sales, and atomic energy defense activities), Dawn 
     Sauter (operation and maintenance), and Joseph C. Whitehill 
     (sale of naval vessels). They can be reached at 226-2840.
       Eric Rollins prepared the estimates for incentive payments 
     to civilian employees (sections 1103 and 1104). He can be 
     reached at 226-2820.
       Kathy Gramp prepared the estimates of forgone receipts from 
     auctioning the electro-magnetic spectrum. Victoria. V. Heid 
     prepared the estimate for the withdrawal of the Juniper Butte 
     Range Lands, and Deborah Reis prepared the estimate for the 
     Panama Canal Commission. They can be reached at 226-2860.
       Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex 
     (225-3220).
       Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas (226-2900).
       Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate 
floor privileges be granted to staff members of the Armed Services 
Committee during the pendency of S. 2057, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, for today and each day the 
measure is pending before the Senate and for the rollcall votes 
thereon:
  Les Brownlee, Staff Director; George Lauffer, Deputy Staff Director; 
Scott Stucky, General Counsel; David Lyles, Minority Staff Director; 
and Peter Levine, Minority Counsel.
  Charlies Abell, John R. Barnes, Stuart H. Cain, Lucia Monica Chavez, 
Christine E. Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn D. DeBobes, John 
DeCrosta, and Marie F. Dickinson.
  Keaverny Donovan, Shawn H. Edwards, Jonathan L. Etherton, Pamela L. 
Farrell, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Maria A. Finley, Jan Gordon, Greighton 
Greene, Gary M. Hall, and Patrick ``Pt'' Henry.
  Larry J. Hoag, Andrew W. Johnson, Melinda M. Koutsoumpas, Lawrence J. 
Lanzillotta, Henry C. Leventis, Paul M. Longsworth, Stephen L. Madey, 
Jr., Michael J. McCord, J. Reaves McLeod, and John H. Miller.
  Ann M. Mittermeyer, Bert K. Mizusawa, Cindy Pearson, Sharen E. 
Reaves, Moultrie D. Roberts, Cord A. Sterling, Eric H. Thoemmes, 
Roslyne D. Turner, and D. Banks Willis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today the Senate is back to consider S. 
2057, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I am 
hopeful that we will be able to finish the floor action on this bill 
quickly, and I am looking forward to the floor debate.
  Mr. President, this bill is an important piece of legislation that 
enhances our national security. The Armed Services Committee has 
reported a sound bill which provides a 3.1 percent pay raise for the 
uniformed services, restores appropriate funding levels for the 
construction and maintenance of both bachelor and family housing, and 
increases investment in future modernization to ensure that the 
Department of Defense can leverage advances in technology and maintain 
our future force readiness.
  This bill recommends a number of policy initiatives and spending 
increases which improve the readiness of the reserve forces and permit 
greater use of the expertise and capabilities of the reserve 
components.
  Under the budget agreement, we have not added funds to the defense 
budget this year. However, as I stated when the Budget Resolution was 
on the floor, I believe that we are not providing adequate funds for 
defense and that we must reverse this negative spending trend.
  Mr. President, as a result of the budget agreement reached last year, 
non defense discretionary spending received significant increases while 
defense continued its downward spending

[[Page S6648]]

trends--not even keeping pace with inflation. During the fiscal year 
1998 appropriations process, the national security appropriations bill 
had the lowest percentage increase from fiscal year 1997 funding level 
than any of the other appropriations bills. In fact, military 
construction appropriations had a negative 6.2 percent change over the 
fiscal year 1997 funding levels, making funding for national defense 
grow at one-fifth the rate of domestic spending increases.
  Since the end of the Cold War, the active military end strength has 
been reduced from 2.2 million men and women to a little over 1.4 
million. Annual defense spending continues to decline from a level of 
$400 billion in fiscal year 1986 to about $260 billion, in equivalent, 
inflation-adjusted dollars.
  Mr. President, I have been pleased to hear that many of my colleagues 
including, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee believe, as I do, and have been 
recently quoted in the press that defense spending must be increased, 
and the negative spending trend for defense must be reversed. The gap 
between our military capability and our commitments around the world 
continues to widen. We can no longer carry out the ambitious foreign 
policy of this Administration with the level of resources allocated for 
defense and still maintain our current readiness posture. We will not 
require less of our servicemen and women in the future. We must meet 
our obligation to provide adequate resources for our national security.

  In this bill, the Committee has achieved a better balance among near-
term readiness, long-term readiness, quality of life and adequate, safe 
and reliable nuclear weapons capabilities.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the Chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee and his staff for their close cooperation 
with our Committee this year. I cannot recall a time when we have 
worked together as closely as we have this year. I believe that 
cooperation is reflected in both of our bills, and I commend the 
Chairman and the Members of the Appropriations Committee and their fine 
staff for their work this year.
  I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and offer their amendments, 
but I would also like to remind my colleagues that any amendments to 
the defense authorization bill that would increase spending should be 
accompanied by offsetting reductions.
  My hope is that colleagues will support this bill and join the 
Members of the Armed Services Committee in passing this bill with a 
strong bipartisan vote.
  I wish to thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me again commend Senator Thurmond 
for his leadership on the committee. His chairmanship has been a 
distinguished one. He has worked hard to keep us together as a 
bipartisan committee. We have adopted this bill on a bipartisan basis. 
He and his staff have worked with me and our staff to work out the 
problems that we have had, and where there have been disagreements we 
have resolved them and moved on to other areas of importance. We are 
ready to get back to work on our bill. As the chairman mentioned, the 
Appropriations Committee has already reported the DOD appropriations 
bill, and we worked cooperatively with them, so it is important that we 
complete action on this authorization bill so we can get to conference.
  We have been working with Senators for the past several weeks on a 
number of amendments which we have been able to clear, and I hope that 
we can act on those cleared amendments here this morning.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. I just take this opportunity to thank Senator Levin and 
the Members of the minority for their fine cooperation and working with 
us on this defense bill. Senator Levin is always ready to cooperate, 
and he renders this country a great service.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the underlying 
National Defense Authorization Act, amendment 2387, which I filed on 
May 20.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent at this point 
to call up an amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is an amendment by 
Senator Brownback, a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay 
aside the pending business for the purpose of offering amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak on several 
amendments which I would have offered today had objection not been 
raised. These amendments, to which objection has been raised on the 
basis that they are controversial, are, word for word, provisions that 
passed the U.S. House of Representatives many months ago by 
overwhelming margins.
  The first amendment I will be speaking on passed the House of 
Representatives by a margin of 415 to 1. It is that amendment dealing 
with coerced and forced abortions in the Nation of China to which 
objection has been raised and to which I will speak this morning.
  I further point out, these amendments were filed May 20, a month ago, 
to the defense authorization bill, and I announced my intent, even 
prior to that, to offer these amendments and to ensure that those 
provisions which passed the House with such overwhelming support, 
reflecting overwhelming public support for these provisions, would have 
an opportunity to be voted on in the U.S. Senate.
  I think those votes would have occurred much sooner had they not been 
tied up in committee. I think that they have overwhelming support, not 
only by the country, not only by the U.S. House of Representatives, but 
by the U.S. Senate, and when we have a chance to vote on them--and we 
will--that we will see them pass this body just as assuredly, and by 
the same kind of margin, as they passed the House.
  So, while there may be objection raised on the basis that they are 
controversial amendments, I think when the vote happens we will find 
they are really not controversial at all. I think we are going to find 
very few Senators willing to cast nay votes on amendments which are so 
commonsensical and so reflect the moral values of the American people. 
We will have an opportunity to find out later, but objection has been 
raised.
  The intent in offering these amendments somehow has been construed as 
being an effort to embarrass the President. I have no desire to 
embarrass the President on the eve of his trip. I do think it is 
important we send a certain message, and a clear, resounding message, 
to the Chinese Communist Government as to how important human rights 
abuses in that Nation--how important they are to our country, to our 
people, and to our Government.
  I would have been delighted to have had this debate and this vote a 
month ago. Had it not been for prolonged, extended debate on the 
tobacco bill, that would have happened. So the timing for the offering 
of these amendments is not such to have some design to embarrass the 
President on the eve of his trip to Beijing. The timing was unavoidable 
because of the prolonged, extended debate on the tobacco bill that I 
think ran into 4 weeks. But I remind my colleagues on the floor this 
morning, these amendments were offered a month ago, there was public 
attention paid to these amendments a month ago, and it was clearly 
announced that I intended to offer them a month ago. I think it is 
unfortunate we cannot go ahead and offer those amendments to the 
defense authorization bill today.

[[Page S6649]]

  The amendment, as I say, mirrors the language that passed 
overwhelmingly on the floor of the House. It would do two things. 
First, it condemns those officials of the Chinese Communist Party, the 
Government of the People's Republic of China, and other Chinese 
nationals involved in forced abortions and sterilization. I hardly 
think that is controversial. I do not think there are many people in 
this country who would say we should not condemn the practice of forced 
abortions and forced sterilizations. So the amendment does that.

  Second, the amendment would prevent such persons from entering or 
remaining in the United States. That is, it would deny visas to those 
Communist Government officials who are involved in the practice of 
forced sterilizations and forced abortions in the Nation of China. It 
would be based upon credible evidence, and that credible evidence would 
be ascertained by the Secretary of State. So, to the extent that that 
information is available, to the extent that we have factual evidence 
that a person is involved in this horrendous practice, as determined by 
our Secretary of State, then visas would be denied to those 
individuals.
  I just find it very difficult to see anything controversial about 
those two provisions in this amendment, but objection has been raised, 
although it passed by 415 to 1 in the House of Representatives. The 
objection has been raised on the basis of it being controversial 
because it condemns those Chinese Communist Party officials involved in 
abortions and sterilizations and would prevent them from receiving 
visas to travel to this country if the Secretary of State so determined 
that credible evidence indicated they were involved in that. That is 
the controversial amendment we are not allowed to offer today to the 
defense authorization bill.
  In an attempt to reach a 1 percent annual population growth rate, 
Chinese authorities, in 1979, instituted a policy of allowing one child 
per couple, providing monetary bonuses and other benefits as 
incentives. In subsequent years, it has been widely reported that women 
with one living child, who become pregnant a second time, are often 
subjected to rigorous pressure to end the pregnancy and undergo 
sterilization.
  Forced abortion and sterilization have not only been used in 
Communist China to regulate the number of children but to eliminate 
those regarded as defective under China's eugenics policy, the so-
called natal and health care law. This law requires couples at risk of 
transmitting disabling congenital defects to their children to use 
birth control or undergo sterilization.
  China's leadership has admitted that coerced abortions and 
involuntary sterilizations occur but insists that officials involved in 
such incidents are acting outside the law and are punished. The extent 
to which this policy is carried out is not known, and while its 
enforcement is not uniform throughout China, the very fact that such a 
policy exists is abhorrent to people around the world who believe in 
basic human rights.
  China's population control officials, working with employers and work 
unit officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles. They 
subject women who conceive without government authorization to extreme 
psychological pressure, to harsh economic sanctions, including 
unpayable fines and loss of employment and, in some instances, physical 
force.
  The aborting of unauthorized pregnancies, regardless of the stage of 
pregnancy--first trimester, second trimester, or even third trimester--
is apparently, in China, a routine occurrence. Some have argued that 
China commits about half a million third-trimester abortions annually. 
Most of these babies are fully viable when they are killed, and 
virtually all of these abortions are performed against the mother's 
will.
  I have also been told by those who have studied this issue that women 
are often imprisoned, brainwashed, and refused food until they finally 
break down and agree to the performing of an abortion. The actual 
methods by which doctors carry out these procedures are often unnerving 
and horrific. It has been reported that doctors commonly inject women 
with a shot of Rivalor, commonly known as ``the poison shot,'' which 
directly causes congestive heart failure in the baby. The baby slowly 
dies over the course of 2 or 3 days, at which time the baby will be 
delivered dead.

  I have also been made aware of reports that Chinese doctors also 
inject pure formaldehyde into the baby's soft spot of their head or the 
skull is crushed by the doctor's forceps.
  Steven Mosher, the Director of Asian Studies at California's 
Claremont Institute, can personally account for seeing doctors carrying 
``chokers.'' These chokers are similar to our white twisty garbage 
ties. They are placed around the baby's neck during delivery. The baby 
then dies of painful strangulation over a period of about 5 minutes.
  A government that would force women to undergo these kinds of grisly 
procedures obviously has no respect for basic human rights.
  China currently has legislation that requires women to be sterilized 
after conceiving two children, and they even go so far as to demand 
sterilization of either the man or the woman if traces of a ``serious 
hereditary disease'' are found in an effort to eliminate the presence 
of children with handicaps, illnesses or other characteristics they 
might consider to be ``abnormal.''
  Numerous international organizations have found that the Chinese 
Government utilizes in the sterilization method to control population 
horrendous practices. Mr. President, the practice of forced abortions 
by the Communist Chinese Government was truly exposed to America when 
my good friend and my former colleague in the House, Congressman Chris 
Smith, chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights 
Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee held a 
hearing just less than 2 weeks ago, June 10. This hearing featured 
compelling testimony from a former administrator of China's Planned 
Birth Control Office on the use of coercive population control in order 
to achieve the Communist Government's one-child-per-couple limit.
  Ms. Gao Xiao Dunn, the former head of China's Planned Birth Control 
Office from 1984 to 1988, admitted--and we have heard testimony of what 
she said before the House subcommittee less than 2 weeks ago, the 
former head of the birth control office of Communist China, this is 
what she testified. She said:

       Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant, but did not 
     have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, 
     she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the 
     operation room, I saw how the aborted child's lips were 
     sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected 
     poison into its skull and the child died, and it was thrown 
     into the trash can. To help a tyrant do evils was not what I 
     wanted. I could not bear seeing all those mothers grief-
     stricken by induced delivery and sterilization. I could not 
     live with this on my conscience. I, too, after all, am a 
     mother.

  That was her very vivid, very powerful testimony before the House 
subcommittee, this former head of China's Planned Birth Control Office 
from 1984 to 1988. I think that her testimony, so very compelling, 
demands this body and this Government and this administration to take a 
stand in every way possible against these kinds of practices.
  In addition, Mrs. Gao Xiao Dunn admitted:

       When I was in my hometown in China, I saw how a large 
     number of pregnant women were hiding anywhere they could. 
     Some of them were 9 months pregnant, but were forced to 
     undergo abortion procedures just the same--simply because 
     they had no ``birth-allowed certificates.'' The government 
     dismantled the houses of some of them and made them homeless. 
     The government's planned birth policy is extremely stern. 
     In my native village, I saw how many women were looking 
     for places to hide at night, because the government 
     usually catches people at night. All this made me 
     terrified.

  There are those who apologize for the Chinese Government. They say, 
``Oh, things are better, but these are not things going on today.'' 
Here is someone who knows. Here is someone who was involved in it. Here 
is someone who became so guilt-stricken by her own involvement in this 
practice that she couldn't stand it any longer and has come forward to 
tell that story.
  In her testimony, she discussed the abortions that occurred in jails 
where women were placed in jail who were fighting the physician's 
attempts to abort her child. She spoke of not only the jails where they 
were incarcerated,

[[Page S6650]]

but she spoke of the abortion bed where women were tied in by leather 
straps and where those terrible procedures were performed. Their homes 
were destroyed if they fought the Government strictures on the one-
child policy.
  What does our own State Department say? If we are not willing to 
accept the testimony of someone who put their own future in jeopardy by 
coming forward before a House subcommittee and telling their very 
vivid, compelling story, perhaps we will listen to our own State 
Department, because in the most recent human rights report on China 
issued only a few months ago, our own State Department said:

       The Government does not authorize the use of force to 
     compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization, but 
     officials acknowledge that there are instances of forced 
     abortions and sterilizations. . . . Poor supervision of local 
     officials under intense pressure to meet family planning 
     targets results in instances of abuse, including forced 
     abortion and sterilization. . . . There are credible reports 
     that several women were forced to undergo abortions of 
     unauthorized pregnancies in Fujian. . . . Newspapers in 
     Shenyang reported that family planning agents convinced a 
     woman 7 months pregnant to take ``appropriate measures.''

  That is an abortion, although she was in the seventh month.

       A well-documented incident of a 1994 forced 8-month 
     abortion has been reported in the coastal province of 
     Guangdong. A 1995 incident involving a forced sterilization 
     was also reported in Guangdong.

  That is from the State Department. That is the end of the quote from 
our own State Department report.
  The Chinese Communist Government will deny that it is the official 
policy to encourage coerced abortions. They acknowledge that. Even the 
Chinese Communist Government acknowledges that these terrible practices 
occur.
  What do other human rights organizations say? We have heard from a 
former director of the birth control agency in China. We have heard 
from our own State Department, but independent groups that monitor 
human rights abuses in China have weighed in as well.
  Amnesty International has expressed its strong opposition to these 
coerced abortions, forced sterilization practices. In a 1996 report, 
``Women in China: Detained, Victimized, but Mobilized,'' it iterated 
its profound concerns about these practices:

       Testimonies have indicated that officials have resorted to 
     physical coercion resulting in torture or cruel, inhuman and 
     degrading treatment when faced with this pressure. Family 
     planning cadres continue to be disciplined and fired for 
     failing to keep birth quotas.

  This is from Amnesty International. While Amnesty International takes 
no position on the official birth control policy in China, they are 
concerned about the human rights violations which result from its 
coercive application. Like many of the human rights organizations that 
monitor China, I am concerned by reports that forced abortion and 
sterilization have been carried out by or at the instigation of people 
acting in an official capacity--such as family planning officials--
against women who are detained, restricted or forcibly taken from their 
homes to have the operation.
  Previous reports by Amnesty International and other organizations 
have cited a wide range of evidence regarding the use of forcible 
measures taken from official family planning reports and regulations. 
Articles in the official Chinese press, testimonies from former family-
planning officials, and testimonies from victims of forced abortion all 
attest that this is all too common still in 1997 in China.
  Reports have also detailed cases of hostages being taken and ill-
treatment by officials of the relatives of couples who failed to pay 
birth control fines or who had fled their villages attempting to avoid 
abortion or sterilization.
  The Chinese authorities have never responded to such reports in 
detail. In recent years, they have simply asserted that ``coercion is 
not permitted,'' but they admit that it is going on. Mr. President, I 
am concerned that there is no evidence the Chinese authorities have yet 
set in place effective measures to ensure that such coercion is not 
only forbidden on paper, but punished and prevented in practice.
  I have been unable to find any instance of sanctions taken against 
officials who perpetuate such violations. In other words, the Chinese 
Communist Government today in the enforcement of their one-child policy 
turns a blind eye to local officials who use coercion, who use force, 
to compel women to have abortions against their will.
  Mr. President, the absence of laws and regulations in China 
concerning coercive family planning has become even more cause for 
concern since 1995. Since that time, China has made numerous 
commitments at the international level to combating violence against 
women. However, the absence of any substantive laws regulating forced 
abortions and sterilization appear to widen the potential for coercion.
  Mr. President, I am aware that some have concerns about how we can 
assure compliance with this amendment's requirement that visas be 
denied to individuals involved with these nefarious practices of forced 
abortions, of forced abortions and sterilizations. While I would expect 
a determined effort would be made to identify persons involved in such 
actions prior to the issuance of such visas, I recognize that 
enforcement will not be easy in every instance. And I would state that 
what is most important is that we provide both a strong condemnation of 
these practices, which the amendment does, and that we provide a 
mechanism for taking action against those responsible for them when 
credible information about their activities comes to light.
  Let me reiterate, there is absolutely nothing controversial about 
this amendment. We are talking about the kinds of family planning 
practices condemned across the political spectrum, by all who are 
concerned about moral values and basic human rights, that we take the 
modest action of saying we ought to condemn it as a government and we 
ought to deny visas to those who are perpetuating the practice in 
China, that to the extent we can identify them, to the extent that 
credible information comes forward, they should not be given visas to 
travel to this country. I do not believe--I really in my heart--do not 
believe there is anybody on the other side of the aisle who thinks this 
is a bad thing to do. So I am perplexed and I am befuddled that anybody 
would object to this amendment as being controversial.
  Not only is China an increasing threat internationally, but within 
their own borders they continue to oppress their own people. And we 
should not simply turn a blind eye and say we do not want to talk about 
it or that it might cause embarrassment to either our President or to 
the Chinese Government. What a pitiful excuse for not addressing the 
issue.
  Involuntary abortion or sterilization should be condemned, and it 
should be condemned in the strongest terms as a violation of human 
rights, a violation of the first order.
  I want to read a brief excerpt from Nicholas Kristof and his wife 
Sheryl Wudunn from their book, the 1994 book, ``China Wakes, The 
Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power.'' Mr. Kristof was the New York 
Times' Beijing bureau chief, and his wife Ms. Wudunn was a New York 
Times Beijing correspondent in the late 1980s. They are the only 
married couple to have ever won the Pulitzer Prize award.
  In 1989, Mr. Kristof and Ms. Wudunn were awarded with the Pulitzer 
Prize for their reporting during the Tiananmen Square massacre. They 
saw firsthand the Chinese Government's reprehensible practices. In 
particular, apart from the Tiananmen Square massacre, they saw 
firsthand the practices of forced abortions and sterilizations.

  This is what they wrote, these two prize-winning authors. They wrote:

       The family planning authorities routinely forced young 
     women to undergo abortions and sterilization. The township 
     authorities send teams into the villages once or twice a year 
     to collect all the women who are due to be fitted with an IUD 
     or to be sterilized. Some run away, in hopes they can remain 
     fertile and have another baby, and the authorities then send 
     goons to the women's relatives in other villages, even in 
     other provinces, to find and sterilize them. Usually, they do 
     not have to drag a woman to the operating table; when half a 
     dozen men surround her home and order her to come out, she 
     may not see much sense in fighting back.

  Mr. President, the bottom line is that the practice of forced 
abortion and sterilization is inhumane. The practice is repugnant, and 
it is morally reprehensible.
  This amendment, which I hope to be able to offer in the near future--
this

[[Page S6651]]

amendment is not about a peculiarly American view of rights. It is not 
even about whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. It does not have a 
thing to do with this amendment. The use of force coercion, 
intimidation to commit such crimes against humanity is something that 
we all as a freedom-loving people--Democrat, Republican, pro-life, pro-
choice--that all of us can join together in vigorously denouncing.
  I remind you again, what this amendment does is to condemn the 
practice and say, to the extent that we can identify these individuals, 
with credible information--the Secretary of State can do that--we will 
deny them visas. This amendment, this ``very controversial'' amendment, 
passed by a vote of 415-1 in the House of Representatives, this 
amendment to which objection has been made today on the basis of it 
being controversial.
  Mr. President, were I able to offer additional amendments today--and 
I had four prepared to be offered--I would move to amendment No. 2423, 
which I will not offer, but I intend to debate and make a statement on.
  This is another ``controversial'' amendment. It passed the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 366-54. I filed this amendment back on May 
20, almost a month ago. I announced my intent at that time that I would 
offer this amendment to the defense authorization bill. It mirrors the 
language that passed the House of Representatives. It would do three 
things.
  It states, as congressional policy, that religious freedom should be 
a major facet of the President's policy towards China. Secondly, the 
amendment would prohibit the use of American funds appropriated for the 
Department of State, USIA or AID to pay for the travel of Communist 
Chinese officials involved in the monitoring of government-approved 
churches in China, or the formulation of implementation of policies to 
repress worship.
  So it would deny our Government paying the travel expenses for those 
who are involved in the Chinese Communist Government in monitoring and 
supervising churches, places of worship, and those who were involved in 
the repression and the persecution of religious minorities.
  Thirdly, it would deny visas to officials engaged in religious 
persecution--not the head of Government, not Cabinet members; we would 
exempt them; and not those who are the official heads of the Patriotic 
churches, but to Government officials involved in the persecution and 
repression of religious minorities--they would be denied visas. The 
conditions and the criteria would be the same--credible information, 
credible evidence as determined by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. President, since the founding of the People's Republic of China 
almost 50 years ago, the Chinese Government has too often been involved 
in the persecution of religious believers. And they have subjected all 
religious groups in China to comprehensive control by the state and the 
Chinese Communist Party.
  The five officially recognized religious denominations have been 
reorganized into state-controlled associations, as the Chinese 
Buddhist, the Daoist, the Islamic, the Patriotic Catholic associations, 
and the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement. Even within the pale 
of these authorized religions, Tibetan Buddhists and Uigher Moslems in 
Xinjiang have been subjected to wholesale persecution because of the 
enduring links between their religion and their national aspirations. 
For similar reasons, the Chinese Government has forcibly severed all 
links between Chinese Catholics and Protestants and their foreign 
coreligionists.
  In fact, while I was in China in January, I met with a group of 
American nationalists, American expatriates, who are doing business in 
China. They attend church in China and have an American church. It has 
to be an American church by law. They cannot allow Chinese people to 
attend. They have almost 1,000 Americans who attend this church. But in 
meeting with them, they said, were they to allow any of the Chinese 
nationals to attend and to worship with them, they would be shut down 
because of the Chinese Government's fear of any influence from outside 
its own borders.
  Millions of other religious believers, according to some estimates, 
the large majority of Chinese, have been deemed to fall outside these 
five recognized faiths and are simply denied any status as believers 
and are subjected to criminal penalties for practicing what the 
Government calls ``superstition'' or ``folk beliefs.''
  Even congregations of authorized denominations are kept under rigid 
state control through mandatory registration, a requirement enforced 
with unprecedented severity through the last several years, what they 
called an anticrime crackdown. The anticrime crackdown became the 
rationale for cracking down on religious minorities in China. It has 
been very severe in recent years. Registration entails full state 
control over religious doctrines.
  I met with seminary officials while I was in China in Shanghai. We 
had a very interesting discussion. They are recognized, authorized, 
registered with the Government. But they made it very clear, as well, 
that there are certain things they are not allowed to do. I asked, 
could you go down the street, rent a building, and open that building 
for church services? There was a Government official sitting in the 
room, and they cast a weary glance at the Government officials, and 
they said no, that would not be tolerated; worship has to be done in 
approved places. I said, could you go out on the street, upstairs--we 
were meeting in a basement--could you go upstairs and pass out 
religious literature? Once again, a kind of weary glance at the 
Government officials in the room and they said no, that would not be 
permitted; religion must be constrained to certain geographical 
locations--a far different idea of what religious freedom is--in China 
today.
  The content of preaching in sermons is controlled by the Government. 
It is not permitted to preach on the ``second coming of Christ.'' That 
would be a taboo subject. They would not allow that to be taught or 
proclaimed in a Protestant or Catholic church in China.
  The selection of clergy--controlled by the Government. Financial 
affairs, religious materials, building programs--you can't go build a 
church without getting a zoning requirement. It is a means of 
controlling the growth, as well as restriction on educational and 
social welfare projects. There is a complete bar on proselytizing 
persons under 18 and an official veto over baptism at any age. 
Registered congregations must reveal the names and addresses of all 
congregants.
  The head of the state's Religious Affairs Bureau said in 1996, ``Our 
aim is not registration for its own sake but control over places for 
religious activities, as well as over all religious activities 
themselves.'' I don't know how you could be much more upfront, much 
more candid, than this official was, an individual who is the head of 
the entire China state Religious Affairs Bureau and very recently, in 
1996, said, ``Our aim is not registration . . .'' just to register, our 
goal is ``control over places for religious activities, as well as over 
all religious activities themselves.'' The key word is the word 
``control.'' That is the reason they require churches, synagogues, 
Buddhist temples, that is why they require all religious activities to 
be approved and sanctioned by the Government. Religious organizations 
are required to promote socialism and patriotism, while the massive 
state and party propaganda apparatus vigorously promotes atheism and 
combat superstition. While the Government officially promotes atheism, 
they demand that the churches support and promote patriotism.
  Why is there this intense effort to control religion in China? I 
suggest if you look back to the ancient Roman empire, you can find an 
example of why that is so important to the Communist Chinese 
Government. It was the policy of the Roman empire that they practice 
what they called ``religious tolerance.'' You could have any religion 
you wanted, so long as whatever religious faith you were, you were 
willing to acknowledge Caesar as the ultimate sovereign. It would 
demand that, regardless of your faith, you say Caesar is Lord. That is 
where Christianity ran into problems in the Roman empire--it was the 
persecuted religion--because Christians wouldn't say Caesar is Lord, 
the ultimate sovereign. They saw there was a sovereign, a control 
beyond the Government, beyond Caesar.

[[Page S6652]]

  May I suggest that is exactly the fear of the Chinese Communist 
Government. While they repressed all political dissent, our own State 
Department says that all of the political dissidents, all in the 
democracy movement have been incarcerated, exiled, or executed. So they 
have eliminated that threat. They see now that which is beyond their 
control as being the rapid growth of religion. And religion is growing. 
It is in a tremendous revival. People of faith are multiplying in 
China. Thus, we find the Chinese Government cracking down on religion 
because they see that as, in the long term, a threat to their power and 
their control because here is a body of people who see a loyalty beyond 
the Government in Beijing. So they crack down.
  The Chinese Government and the Communist Party have in recent years 
intensified these efforts to expel religious believers from the 
Government, the military, and the party, ordering a nationwide purging 
of believers in January 1995. In spite of this, there is a phenomenal 
growth occurring among people of faith in China.
  But I am deeply concerned about the mounting campaign against people 
of faith in China. The Roman Catholic Church has been made--at least 
the part of the Roman Catholic Church that recognizes the Vatican and 
the papal authority in Rome--has been made effectively illegal in China 
today. Priests, bishops, people of faith have been imprisoned and 
harassed. Zheng Yunsu, the leader of a Jesus family, a Protestant 
community in Shandong Province, is one of many behind bars today simply 
for practicing their faith. He was arrested during a police raid in the 
community in 1992. Then he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for 
disrupting--listen to this--for ``disrupting public order and 
swindling.'' His four sons and other members of the group were also 
imprisoned. I believe those individuals are prisoners of conscience and 
prisoners of faith.
  Such persecution of religious groups has followed a substantial 
religious revival of China in the past 15 years. The Christian 
community--much of the expansion has been in religious groups that 
conduct their activities outside the Protestant and Catholic churches 
recognized by the Government.
  When I visited China in January, I attended a church that worshipped 
openly, but in order to worship openly, they had to be approved, they 
had to be sanctioned, they had to be registered by the Government. But 
the explosive growth among believers in China today of all faiths is 
occurring primarily among the unregistered, the underground church, the 
house church movement.
  Here we have a picture that was smuggled out of one of those house 
churches. You can see, I think, not only the enthusiasm and the faith 
and the devotion. The picture is worth a thousand words. There are more 
than a thousand words articulated by that picture. The response of the 
Chinese Government to this growth of faith has been to crack down, to 
incarcerate, to persecute, to economically penalize those who would 
dare to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. That is 
why we believe we should take a stand. That is what this amendment is 
all about--condemn the practice, deny visas to those involved in it. I 
am sorry, but I have a hard time discerning how that could be 
controversial.
  Mr. President, these peaceful but unregistered religious gatherings 
have been raided by police. Gatherings like this have been raided by 
police. Those attending have been beaten, threatened, and detained. 
Many of those detained are required to pay heavy fines as a condition 
for release. Those regarded as ``leaders'' are usually kept in custody 
and either sentenced to prison terms or administratively detained 
without charge or trial.
  I was talking just last night with a lobbyist, a lobbyist for a very 
major American corporation. If I could mention the name of the 
corporation, everyone would immediately recognize it as being one of 
the leading companies in this country. This lobbyist engaged me in a 
discussion on China. I didn't bring it up, he did. He said, ``I want to 
talk to you about your convictions on China.'' Then he said, ``Senator, 
our people in Beijing say that there is religious freedom in China 
today.'' Then I began to tell about some of the things that are 
actually going on, some of what I learned even while I was there. I 
think that there is a tremendous disinformation to say that things are 
OK.
  These aren't American views of freedom, these are basic human values. 
People of faith ought to be able to worship according to the dictates 
of their conscience and their own hearts, without fear of intimidation, 
without fear of incarceration, without fear of economic penalty.
  In January 1994, two national regulations on religious activities 
came into force. Notably, Mr. President, they banned religious 
activities which ``undermine national unity and social stability.'' Let 
me say that again. They banned religious activities which ``undermine 
national unity and social stability.'' Whatever in the world does that 
mean?
  That it the whole point. It is subject to the whims of any local 
official who wants to interpret it. Under the broad rubric of these two 
regulations, any activity could be construed as undermining the Chinese 
Government and, therefore, constitute a threat punishable by 
prosecution, imprisonment, arrest, and bodily harm.
  These regulations also require that all ``places of religious 
activities'' be registered with the authorities, according to the rules 
formulated by China's Religious Affairs Bureau.
  This means, in effect, Mr. President, that religious groups that do 
not have official approval may not obtain registration, and that those 
involved in religious activities in unregistered places may be detained 
and punished. In other words, if you started a worship service in your 
home, you could not get official sanction, be registered, and you would 
be subject to detainment or punishment. Provided in these new 
regulations are detention and criminal penalties for any violation.
  During this past year, police raids on religious gatherings organized 
by independent groups have continued, with hundreds of Protestants and 
Catholics reportedly detained as a result. More than 300 Christians 
were reported to have been detained in what appears to have been a 
crackdown by local police on unregistered Protestant houses and 
churches.
  The evidence is clear that there is an intensified Chinese effort to 
repress religious liberty. This repression ranges from ransacking homes 
in Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to destroying 
or closing 18,000 Buddhist shrines last spring alone. Ministers, 
priests, and monks are routinely arrested and imprisoned, tortured, and 
sometimes killed for the mere expression of their faith.
  Mr. President, I believe not only should we adopt this amendment, 
which passed with over 350 votes in the House of Representatives, I 
believe that the President, on his trip to China, should raise this 
issue to the highest level. I hope he will do that. He said he is not 
intending to meet with dissidents. I hope he will change his mind. I 
hope that he will say what the Chinese people can't say, and that while 
the Chinese people are gagged, our President won't be gagged. He will 
have the opportunity and I hope he will talk about these issues.
  Mr. President, in Paul Marshall's critically acclaimed book ``Their 
Blood Cries Out,'' an authoritative book on religious persecution 
around the globe, the case of Bishop Su is documented. During Bishop 
Su's 15 years in China's prison system, he was subjected to various 
forms of torture. They go through very graphic detail in recounting the 
kinds of suffering that this bishop endured. Unfortunately, that is not 
the exception.
  The State Department's most recent report on religious freedom 
states:

       . . . the government of China has sought to restrict all 
     actual religious practice to government-authorized religious 
     organizations and registered places of worship.

  That is what they have sought to do. Then our State Department goes 
into a great deal of detail, enunciating exactly the kinds of abuses 
that are too common in China today.
  There are only a handful of churches that are open in all of Beijing, 
not because there are not worshipers or believers, but because of the 
practice of the Government. The legal provisions requiring registration 
of all religious groups have been used against various

[[Page S6653]]

groups, including members of Protestant house churches who organize 
religious meetings in their private homes without having registered 
with the authorities. Many of these groups and the members of these 
groups don't register out of a personal conviction. They don't believe 
it would be proper. They feel they would be restricting their own faith 
and what they could say and do; so they don't register. Then they face 
detainment and fines and harassment by the police. Some house churches 
have voluntarily suspended their meetings because many members were 
being harassed, and others have regularly changed premises and meeting 
times for worship, moving from place to place to avoid detection by the 
authorities. Some congregations have even stopped singing during the 
worship time in order to avoid detection.
  Pressure to register is reported to have increased in the past year. 
Reports from various areas show that official control over religious 
activities has been stepped up. Unregistered Protestant churches in 
Shanghai have been under increased Government pressure since December 
of 1994 when authorities announced that ``it was illegal to hold 
religious activities in unregistered places of worship.'' The 
authorities reportedly threatened to fine any person found attending or 
leading an unregistered house church meeting. Religious books, 
religious tapes, and even collection boxes and offering plates have 
been confiscated by Government officials.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that the human costs are higher 
for unregistered or unauthorized clergy and believers. It is too high. 
We should and we must denounce it, condemn it, and speak out against 
it. Today, hundreds of people are serving long prison sentences in 
China--Buddhists, Taoists, Moslems, Catholics, and Protestants--for 
simply practicing their religious faith.
  The Beijing government sentenced a 76-year-old Protestant leader to 
15 years in prison for the ``high crime'' of distributing Bibles. Where 
do you get a Bible in China? There is a lot of talk about how, today, 
the Chinese Government permits the printing of Bibles. That is true. 
They set a quota every year. They allow a certain number to be printed, 
but they can only be distributed in churches, in places of worship 
which are officially recognized, sanctioned and registered by the 
Communist government. That is how you get a Bible in China. So this 
man, 76 years old, was arrested for distributing Bibles illegally. He 
was sentenced to 15 years.
  But it is controversial for us to condemn that with an amendment to 
the Department of Defense authorization. Somehow, it is controversial 
to deny visas to those who are perpetrating these kinds of atrocities 
against religious believers. I am sorry.
  The Government then sentenced a 65-year-old evangelical elder to an 
11-year prison term for belonging to an unauthorized evangelical group. 
They sentenced a 60-year-old Roman Catholic priest to 2 years of 
``reeducation through labor'' for unknown charges. He had previously 
spent 13 years in prison because of his refusal to renounce the 
Vatican. The 6-year-old Panchen Lama--the second highest dignitary in 
Tibetan Buddhism--has been detained for a year and a half, and his 
whereabouts are unknown. Scores of Tibetan Buddhists who refused to 
participate in the Communist Chinese sham enthronement of Beijing's 
``Panchen Lama'' have been sent to prison. One leading Buddhist 
spiritual teacher committed suicide rather than to take part in the 
charade.
  I have another chart I want to show you. These are simple news 
accounts that have occurred--all of them within the last 2 weeks. They 
are reports in the mainstream media during the last 2 weeks.
  June 14, The Portland Oregonian reported that:

       Chinese police interrogated and threatened three dissidents 
     who urged President Clinton to press Chinese leaders on human 
     rights during the summit. . . . Police ransacked the homes of 
     Leng and Tang, confiscated the computers, and took the two to 
     a local precinct.

  This is occurring within weeks of the President's visit. Instead of 
things getting better, they are rounding up dissidents in preparation 
for the President's visit. That is how little they comprehend the value 
of human rights. That is how little they understand what our concerns 
are in this country. Instead of releasing dissidents, instead of 
encouraging free expression, they round them up.
  I think we have all read about the unflattering book published in 
China about our President. What do they do? They round up the books and 
don't let the books be in the bookstores when our President visits. 
That is China today.
  On June 18, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported that, ``Beijing 
warned the Vatican not to use the Internet or other media channels to 
interfere with China's religious affairs policies.'' This is June 18. 
So it is very current in what the Chinese Government is saying, warning 
the Vatican not to use the Internet to interfere with their internal, 
domestic, religious affairs policies.
  On June 16, the New York Times reported on ``an hour-long documentary 
on President Jiang Zemin's state visit to the United States last 
year.'' And it continues. On June 16, the New York Times reported that 
the Japan Economic News Wire reported that, ``In the run-up of 
President Bill Clinton's visit to China, a veteran Chinese dissident 
has been indicted for helping another activist escape to Hong Kong.''
  Once again, do you know what gets the publicity? The four, or five, 
or six high-profile prisoners--I will not use the word ``release'' 
because they are not released, they are exiled. They are allowed out of 
prison and sent to the United States. They said, ``Don't return.'' This 
administration would like to say that is a victory for human rights? We 
used to say that was a travesty of human rights, if you were released 
from prison, exiled from your country, and not allowed to go back to 
your homes and families. This is hailed as a victory for human rights. 
Think about the five or six released. Just remember. Right now, in 
preparation for the President's visit, they are rounding up the 
dissidents so there won't be anything that might be embarrassing to the 
Chinese Government or to the President. Freedom is embarrassing, you 
know.
  June 15, the Asian Pulse reported:

       U.S. Ambassador to China, James Sasser, said today that 
     many of the sanctions imposed on China by the United States 
     after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre could be lifted in 
     the ``not too distant future.''

  The only reason I put this quote in from the Asia Pulse is that we 
would be giving these signals out, that our Ambassador would be giving 
these signals out, in view of--this is what they are doing. They are 
cracking down, they are rounding up the dissidents, they are 
persecuting believers, and we say we are going to lift the sanctions 
that were imposed after the massacre.
  On June 15, the South China Morning Post reported that, ``Dissidents 
in several areas, including Shanghai and Weifang In Shangdong Province 
and Xian, the first stop for President Clinton, have complained of 
harassment. Incidents include home raids, detention, telephone tapping, 
and confiscation of computers.''
  I suppose the appropriate thing when you have a visit of the major 
heads of states, you clean up the streets, paint the buildings, you put 
your best foot forward, and put your best face on. But the way the 
Chinese Government views it is, round up anybody that might say 
something that could be contrary to the party line.
  I am going to go back. This is back to June 6. The New York Times 
reported that ``a bishop in the underground Catholic church has been 
arrested.'' This received about 2 inches of print in the New York 
Times. When Wei was released, it was banner headlines. But when the 
underground bishop was arrested, it got about 2 inches on page A4 of 
the New York times. But at least it was there.

  If you will take note, the American people can see that this is what 
is ongoing.
  When I have the opportunity to offer this amendment--and I will--when 
the Senate has an opportunity to work its will on this amendment, I 
will urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, 
controversial though it has been deemed, that passed the House of 
Representatives with over 350 votes, and, in so doing, to send a clear 
and unmistakable message to the Chinese Government that religious 
persecution is repugnant, reprehensible, and

[[Page S6654]]

that such practices will have consequences.
  I remind you once again that this amendment simply says: We condemn 
such practices. Not only do we condemn them, to the extent that we are 
able to identify those who are involved in those practices, we are not 
going to sanction your travel to this country by granting you a visa.
  I don't know how well it can be enforced. I know there are human 
rights groups out there that monitor what is going on in China. I 
believe that for government officials, which have an egregious record 
of religious persecution, that we can identify them when credible 
information can be brought forward. The Secretary of State can make 
that determination. And it will send a good and solid signal that this 
is an important issue to the American people, which would deny them the 
right to travel to this country.
  Were I permitted to offer an additional amendment that I filed 
originally back on May 20--a month ago--I would offer it were I able to 
today.
  It is, once again, one of those amendments that mirrors the language 
passed by the House of Representatives several months ago by 
overwhelming bipartisan margins. This particular language passed 354 to 
59. I can't offer it today because it has been regarded as 
controversial. This is what it would do. It would direct the President 
to instruct the United States representatives to vote against 
taxpayers' subsidized loans to the People's Republic of China.
  The second thing it would do is, it would require United States 
directors at United States financial institutions, like the IMF and the 
World Bank, to vote against concessional loans to the People's Republic 
of China, and it defines concessional loans this way: as those with 
highly subsidized interest rates, a grace period for repayment of 5 
years or more, and maturities of 20 years or more.
  This is just not something that I offer lightly. I think the facts 
indicate that the People's Republic of China today has a tremendous 
infusion of capital, the private sector primarily. In the international 
sector, they have great infusions of capital. They have an economy that 
is growing two or three times as fast as the U.S. economy. Given the 
human rights record of China, it is unconscionable for us to require 
United States taxpayers to subsidize loans to the People's Republic of 
China. They have enjoyed ready access to international capital through 
commercial loans, direct investments, sales of securities, bond sales, 
and through foreign aid.
  International commercial lending to the People's Republic of China 
had $49 billion in loans outstanding from private creditors in 1995. 
Capital is certainly available without the taxpayer subsidizing it.
  Regarding international direct investment to the People's Republic of 
China, from 1993 through 1995 it totaled $97 billion. In 1996 alone, 
there was $47 billion directly invested in China securities. The 
Chinese securities--the aggregate value of outstanding Chinese 
securities currently held by Chinese nationals and foreign persons is 
$175 billion. From 1993 to 1995, foreign persons invested over $10 
billion in Chinese stocks.
  My point is that there is ample, there is ready, capital available 
for Chinese economic development.
  International assistance and foreign aid: The People's Republic of 
China received almost $1 billion in foreign aid grants, and an 
additional $1.5 billion in technical assistance grants from 1993 
through 1995, and in 1995 received $5.5 billion in bilateral assistance 
loans, including concessional aid and export credits.
  Mr. President, despite China's access to international capital and 
world financial markets, international financial institutions, which 
have annually provided it with more than $4 billion in loans in recent 
years amounting to almost a third of the loan commitments of the Asian 
Development Bank and 17 percent of the loan approvals by the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1995, we are 
asked to continue to subsidize these loans to Chinese corporations.
  I think it is time that we cease doing this. China borrows more from 
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian 
Development Bank than any other country in the world, and loan 
commitments from those institutions to China quadrupled, from $1.1 
billion in 1985 to $4.3 billion by 1995. In spite of the fact that you 
have all of this ready capital available for economic development in 
China, they are utilizing these subsidized loans at an ever greater 
rate.
  Mr. President, I believe strongly that America's taxpayer dollars 
should not be used to create unfair advantages for industry's control 
by foreign governments. However, when the World Bank lends money to 
Communist Chinese industries out of its Poverty Fund, that is exactly 
result that we have.
  I say to my colleagues that these loans are not only contrary to 
American interests and the purposes of the Poverty Fund, but they are 
also unnecessary, given Chinese industry's ready access to foreign 
investment, including $48 billion in loans from private creditors in 
1995 and $97 billion in international direct investments from 1993 to 
1995, and $10.5 billion in investment in Chinese stocks by foreigners 
from 1993 to 1995, and billions more in various types of foreign 
investments. I find it inappropriate that the World Bank and the Asian 
Development Bank loaned China $4.3 billion in both 1995 and 1996, and 
of the 1995 loan amount, $480 million of it, almost $1/2 billion of it 
came from the World Bank's poverty fund, its concessional loan 
affiliate, the International Development Association. As concessional 
loans, these funds are by definition below market and therefore 
subsidized by those who fund it--the American taxpayer.

  This amendment will address what I call the ``Chinese wall,'' the 
wall that was erected between economic and political considerations. 
Inherent in the bylaws of international financial institutions are 
provisions that direct the officers of these institutions to neither 
interfere in the political affairs of any member nor shall they--and I 
am quoting from their bylaws, shall not interfere in the ``political 
affairs of any member, nor shall they be influenced in their decisions 
by the political character of the members or members concerned. Only 
economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions.''
  So in the bylaws of these lending institutions, international lending 
institutions, there is a prohibition from considering the political 
practices of the applicant. I believe that it is these bylaws that 
provide a shield behind which numerous international financial 
institutions continue to provide financing to countries, specifically 
Communist China, that engage in the most egregious abuses of human 
rights; so long as they carry out the economic recommendations agreed 
upon, they can receive the loans. They can continue to receive these 
subsidized loans. I think that is wrong. I think that should be a 
consideration, these human rights abuses that are ongoing.
  This amendment clearly states that ``repressive and oppressive'' 
regimes should not get a loan. In addition, this amendment clearly sets 
out substantive principles that should be adhered to by any U.S. 
national conducting an industrial cooperation project in China.
  In other words, while it is a sense of Congress and is nonbinding, 
the amendment would lay out certain principles by which American 
corporations conducting business, industrial cooperation in China 
should adhere.
  During my time in China and since, and visiting with large American 
corporations doing business in China, I was continually told that an 
American presence in China would have the effect of transmitting 
American values. If we just allow these companies to set up shop, sell 
their products, or put the components together and export them back to 
our country, because we have a $50 billion trade imbalance with China, 
if we will do that, if we will increase trade and allow companies to 
operate there, the result will be a quicker liberalization and a more 
rapid democratization of China.
  That is what I have heard for the last 5 years since I came to 
Congress. I haven't seen it happen. In fact, what I saw was corporate 
officials who said we have a cozy relationship with Beijing and we have 
to maintain that cozy relationship in order to do business in China. 
And so instead of reflecting American values and human rights values 
and concern about repression and oppression, instead of concern about

[[Page S6655]]

religious persecution, instead of concern about coerced abortions and 
American officials standing up and denouncing the Beijing government 
for these ongoing practices, they say in order to do business over 
here, we can't say those kinds of things; we can't take those kinds of 
stands, but let us operate and somehow these values, which we hold deep 
in our heart--but, unfortunately, they are too often hidden--are going 
to be transmitted.

  And so we would just simply, with a sense of the Congress, lay out 
some principles that I think are important for American companies to 
utilize if we are, in fact, to help spark the kind of change that we 
all want to see in China.
  So we suggest suspending the use of any goods, wares, articles, or 
merchandise that the U.S. national has reason to believe were mined, 
produced, or manufactured by convict labor or forced labor, and refuse 
to use forced labor in the industrial cooperation project.
  Pretty good principle to start with, don't you think, for our 
companies operating in China to try to monitor better--some of them are 
doing a good job, some of them are not doing a good job at all, but to 
try to monitor those products that are coming from slave labor camps 
and to pledge they will not use those products.
  Secondly, to seek to ensure that political or religious views, sex, 
ethnic or national background involvement in political activities or 
nonviolent demonstrations, or association with suspected or known 
dissidents will not prohibit hiring, lead to harassment, demotion, or 
dismissal, or in any way affect the status or terms of employment in 
the industrial cooperation project.
  The second principle of the sense of the Congress would simply say 
that because somebody spoke out and expressed themselves on a political 
issue which might be contrary to the party line, they should not be 
fired or be penalized because of that, not be not allowed to work or 
have employment.
  Then we suggest that these projects should discourage any Chinese 
military presence on the premises of any industrial cooperation project 
which involves dual-use technologies.
  The news accounts this morning which said that China has refused to 
agree to an agreement to retarget their missiles, 13 of which are 
currently aimed at American cities, I think underscores the importance 
of that principle for American companies doing business in China, that 
we are not going to have a military presence on those premises that 
involve dual-use technologies.
  And then we suggest that they provide the Department of State with 
information relevant to the Department's efforts to collect information 
on prisoners for the purpose of the Prisoner Information Registry. If 
American companies want to make a difference in operating in China, 
that is something they can do, help our State Department monitor the 
human rights abuses that are ongoing.
  And then finally we suggest they should promote freedom of 
expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart 
information on ideas of all kinds. Nonbinding for the private sector 
but principles, I think, that lay out what our companies should be 
utilizing in their efforts to work in China.
  Mr. President, this Chinese wall that has prohibited consideration of 
political practices and human rights abuses must come tumbling down. 
This amendment would help do that.
  And then if we accept this amendment when it is offered, and I hope 
we will and I think we will--we should--it will spark a rethinking 
inside international financial institutions and our own Treasury 
Department. This rethinking should be based on the United States not 
wanting to reward repressive regimes, countries like China that commit 
the most egregious of human rights abuses with taxpayer-subsidized 
loans.

  Our watchwords on this floor have been and should be ``freedom and 
liberty.'' Part of those watchwords is that we not reward regimes with 
concessional loans, subsidized by the American taxpayer, when these 
kinds of practices continue. So I am going to urge, when I have the 
opportunity to offer this amendment and have a vote on that amendment, 
my colleagues to take that stand, not because the President is going to 
China but because it is the right thing to do, because it was the right 
thing to do last year when the House of Representatives voted on it. It 
is the right thing for the Senate to do.
  I wish we could have voted on it on May 20 when I filed the 
amendment. It in no way is meant to embarrass the President. It is an 
effort to reflect the values of the American people and, as he takes 
this trip, to buttress his ability to stand in Tiananmen Square and 
say, ``Congress thinks this is important; the American people believe 
this is important.''
  Mr. President, if I were able to, I would offer a fourth amendment--I 
had intended to offer a fourth amendment, and when I have the 
opportunity, I will. It is an amendment I filed June 16. It also is an 
amendment that mirrors language that passed overwhelmingly on the floor 
of the House of Representatives. The vote was 401 to 21--401 to 21. It 
would authorize an appropriation of $22 million for Radio Free Asia and 
Voice of America for fiscal year 1999. This amendment was deemed 
controversial, but it passed 401 to 121. It would authorize $22 million 
for Radio Free Asia and Voice of America.
  The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for Radio Free Asia 
was $19.4 million. This amendment would surpass the President's request 
by almost $3 million. Radio Free Asia funding comes out of the United 
States Information Agency, which is a related agency of the State 
Department. It is funded through the Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations bill.
  The second thing the amendment would do would be to facilitate a 24-
hour-a-day broadcast to China in the Mandarin, Cantonese, and Tibetan 
dialects as well as other major dialects, including those spoken in 
Xinjiang.
  Let's put that chart up.
  Additional funding for RFA, Radio Free Asia, would also facilitate 
construction of transmitters in the Mariana Islands and accelerate the 
improvements to the Tinian Island transmitters so they will be 
completed by June 30, 1998, instead of January 1, 1999.
  This map of China is pockmarked with little orange labels. Each one 
of those orange labels represents a location in China in which the 
citizens of China have managed to get correspondence out to Radio Free 
Asia, expressing their appreciation for the work that Radio Free Asia 
does. The greatest tool that we have in bringing about change in China 
is to get the truth, to get the message of democracy and freedom, in to 
the Chinese people. This amendment will be a step toward doing that.
  If passed, it will assist with the creation of a Cantonese language 
service with 16 journalists, including 3 based in Hong Kong and 2 
roving between the United States and east Asia. The amendment would 
require the President to report on a plan to achieve continuous 
broadcasting in Asia within 90 days.
  I believe this is a simple amendment to understand. It encourages 
freedom in China, which we all want--freedom in China. We disagree 
sometimes on methods and strategies, we see different ways to achieve 
it, but I do believe all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate want to see a 
free China.
  I want to say to my colleagues, we should all agree also that 
reaching Chinese listeners in all dialects, encouraging the free flow 
of information, can and will serve as the greatest means by which we 
can get the truth into China. It will be the surrogate media; it will 
be the substitute for the absent free media in Communist China today.
  A fundamental prerequisite to political and economic freedom is an 
informed citizen. However, the Communist Chinese Government has 
accordingly made censorship and control of information available to its 
citizens its top priority. The Communist Chinese Government maintains 
control by simply not letting the people know. It is getting harder and 
harder to do, because of the Internet and other means of international 
communications, but they go to great lengths to keep the Chinese people 
from knowing the truth. Radio Free Asia plays a fundamental role, a 
vital role, in getting the truth in to the citizens of China. This 
amendment will help to make that a priority.
  In addition to China's traditional methods--controlling the media, 
suffocating secrecy, and misinformation,

[[Page S6656]]

massive use of wiretapping, informants, and other forms of surveillance 
to restrict private sources of accurate information--the regime is 
building an infrastructure for Internet use that will permit the state 
to filter and monitor information on this freest communication media. 
It is a perfect example of the priority Communist China places on the 
political control over economic development. The New China News Agency 
even censors commercial news from Dow Jones and Reuters.
  The United States still supports the free flow of information around 
the globe. This is one means by which we can underscore that. That is 
what this amendment does. In fact, people now free of communism's grip 
on the now-defunct Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact attest to the role that 
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty played as surrogate news services 
in these countries. These relatively inexpensive, independently run 
news services served as the best substitute for the free media that was 
absent in the old Soviet Union. Similarly, Radio Free Asia provides 
cost-effective surrogate services to permit the free flow of 
information to the Chinese people.

  I have come down to this floor time and time again to explain why I 
believe this administration's policy toward China is misguided. I do 
not favor a policy of isolation; I favor a policy of true engagement; I 
fear this administration's policy has not been one of engagement; it 
has been one of appeasement. We have not engaged them on human rights, 
we have not engaged them on national security, we really haven't 
engaged them on trade, because we have a $50 billion trade deficit with 
this Government. But while I have many disagreements with the 
President, I applaud his recent remarks concerning Radio Free Asia at 
the National Geographic Society in a speech last week, I believe it 
was. In the President's own words, the President said this:

       I have told President Jiang that when it comes to human 
     rights and religious freedom, China remains on the wrong side 
     of history. . . . In support of that message, we are 
     strengthening Radio Free Asia.

  It needs to be strengthened. I appreciate the President saying that, 
and I believe, because of that, he would be glad to support this 
amendment. I applaud his words, because Radio Free Asia is broadcasting 
under the banner of truthful information to the lingering Communist 
lands--specifically, China--and it has been too often underfinanced by 
this Congress, they have been undermanned, and they have been 
overworked.
  I believe that Radio Free Asia's mission is to do for Asia what Radio 
Free Europe did for Eastern Europe. That mission is to broadcast the 
truthful information to countries where the Communist governments ban 
all free expression by their so-called domestic news services. The 
mission of Radio Free Asia is simply to replicate the kind of radio 
services, in the Communist countries it targets, that those Communist 
countries would have, were they really free countries, were the 
government to allow it, were there not government censorship.
  I live in northwest Arkansas. The population in Benton and in 
Washington Counties in northwest Arkansas is probably 250,000 people. 
In those two counties we have over 20 independently-owned radio 
stations; population 250,000. I was in the radio business. I got out 
because that is too competitive--20 radio stations with 250,000 
people--but that is the free market. That is the right of every 
American, every entrepreneur--to go out and scrape and take a loan out, 
if need be, apply with the FCC, get a license, get a building permit, 
build that tower, and start a radio station. That is what we did, from 
ground up. We have 20 radio stations now in that two-county area.
  When I was in Beijing in January--Beijing, China, one of the largest 
cities population-wise in the world--there was not one independent, 
free, operating radio station. That says about all that needs to be 
said about whether China is really making progress, whether China is on 
the right side of history. The President was right, they are on the 
wrong side of history. In all of Beijing, not one independent 
newspaper. I get mad at the newspapers sometimes in Arkansas. They say 
things I don't like, or they take a position I don't agree with. Boy, 
when I look at the alternative, when I look at China today and I think 
about a city in which all of the newspapers are controlled by the 
Government, I thank God for that free press. Radio Free Asia, 
increasing the funds, providing them the resources, ensuring that they 
are going to be broadcasting in all of the dialects in China and 
broadcasting around the clock, is the best single step that we can take 
to bring about the wanted change in China.
  Mr. President, current U.S.-China policies have been debated, are 
being debated, and will continue to be debated by this Congress. 
Members on both sides of the aisle differ on the best paths and avenues 
to promote and secure freedom and liberty for the Chinese people, but 
this amendment, although it has been called controversial this morning, 
although I have not been allowed to offer it this morning, even though 
the vote would occur next week, this amendment is not controversial. 
This amendment simply says the greatest means we have of changing China 
is to get information in.
  The amendment is not pro-China or anti-China. The amendment is pro-
freedom. I am perplexed that we cannot offer it today. The Senate, the 
Congress, the President, the American people need to send a clear 
message to China and other Communist countries that the U.S. Congress 
will take all necessary steps to ensure that freedom has a chance to 
blossom.
  I am bothered, frankly, that as we have seen the preparations for the 
President's trip, it has become a microcosm of the broader China 
policy. Originally, the President wanted to go to China in November. 
China said, ``We want you to come in June.'' That is the anniversary, 
the ninth anniversary, of the Tiananmen massacre, when hundreds of 
unarmed, innocent democracy protesters were gunned down by the Chinese 
Government. And the Chinese Government says, ``We want you, Mr. 
President, to come in June.'' The President agreed.
  The President originally was going to stop in Japan on this trip, but 
the Chinese Communist Government objected: ``We don't want you to stop 
in Japan, we don't want you to stop anywhere, because President Jiang, 
when he went to the United States, went directly to the United States; 
that is exactly what we want you to do because we are equals.'' The 
President said, ``OK, we won't stop in Japan, we'll make a direct 
trip.''
  The President originally was going to have a shorter trip. The 
Chinese Government said, ``President Jiang stayed 9 days in the United 
States, and we want a 9-day visit to China.'' We don't want to 
embarrass, we don't want a loss of face, so we conceded, we acquiesced.
  The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, over 400, to 
say, ``Mr. President, please don't be received at Tiananmen Square.'' 
That is what the elected representatives of the people of this country 
said, but the Chinese Government said, ``This is where we give official 
receptions.'' We acquiesced. We didn't want to violate protocol. You 
know what I thought about protocol, I thought about that student, that 
portrait, that picture of that lone student standing in the way of 
oncoming tanks. Boy, did he violate protocol. Thank goodness he did. 
But we acquiesced once again, and the fact is, I can't find where we 
didn't acquiesce. It is not a policy of give and take. It is a policy 
of give and give.
  These modest amendments, which I will some day be able to offer and 
on which we will have a vote--such as increasing the funding for Radio 
Free Asia--is a useful instrument for demonstrating, along with 
diplomatic and economic ties, concern for the well-being, concern for 
human rights. Basic human rights in China will always be an integral 
part of the foreign policy of this country. That is the debate that is 
ongoing: Are we going to have a foreign policy devoid of values that 
says trade at any price, or will we, as we always have done, say human 
rights matters and that values will be reflected in our basic policies 
of this country toward the nations of the world?
  I look forward to the continuing debate, and I look forward to the 
opportunity that we will have to offer these amendments. I reiterate 
before I yield the floor, Mr. President, the timing of the offering of 
these amendments is

[[Page S6657]]

not to embarrass the President. These amendments were announced over a 
month ago. Most of them were filed a month ago and would have been 
offered a month ago had we had the DOD authorization on the floor a 
month ago. Timing is not to embarrass the President on the eve of his 
trip.
  I might add that since they are being debated and will be voted on, 
either before or during the President's trip to China, I hope they will 
strengthen the President's hand, that they will give him a stronger 
argument to make on behalf of human rights as he visits with Chinese 
Government leaders. I hope the President will be able to point to these 
votes in the House and the Senate as he stands on Tiananmen Square, or 
as he makes his speech in the People's Congress and he says, ``These 
are values that are important. Look at the votes in the U.S. Senate, 
look at what we are doing on Radio Free Asia, on human rights, on 
coerced abortions, on religious persecution. For the representatives 
elected by the people of my country, these are important issues, and I 
am going to speak about them.'' I hope the President will say this to 
the Chinese Communist Government leaders: ``You may gag your people, 
but you cannot gag me, and I will speak for them.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to our 
distinguished colleague. The fervor of his beliefs and his goals is 
quite clear through the excellent delivery of his remarks.
  We spoke yesterday, I in the capacity of assisting the distinguished 
chairman in trying to manage this bill. I think the Senator is aware of 
the fact that there are bipartisan objections to bringing up his 
amendments. The Senator has seen this letter, I presume?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator will yield, I will respond to the 
Senator from Virginia. I only became aware only as you speak that there 
were bipartisan objections. Earlier today, on the other side of the 
aisle there were objections to bringing these amendments up today. I 
might add, these amendments were filed a month ago. As I spoke to the 
majority leader earlier this week, he was aware and it has been 
publicly reported these amendments were going to be offered to the DOD 
authorization.
  The majority leader encouraged me to stay on Friday so I would be 
able to offer these amendments earlier as opposed to later. He 
encouraged me not to wait until Monday or Tuesday in the debate, but 
offer them today, Friday. It was my plan not to return to my home State 
so I would be able to offer these amendments today.
  I am now aware there are objections, perplexing to me, obviously, 
because they passed by such margins in the House. Yes, I am aware there 
are objections. I am certainly no less committed to ensuring that these 
amendments will be debated and will be voted on. I think they are 
greatly important, and I think they are germane, and I think they are 
appropriate. I intend, when given the opportunity, to press for debate 
and for a vote.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. 
Certainly, I defer to the understandings that he has reached with our 
distinguished majority leader. Momentarily, I hope to be in 
consultation with him--Mr. Thurmond and I--on the phone, and I wonder 
if time permits the Senator to wait just for a brief period until we 
can clarify this.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the ``Dear colleague'' letter which both 
Republicans and Democrats have indicated a desire not to have these 
amendments brought up, just for purposes of the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1998.
       Dear Colleague: When the Senate returns to consideration of 
     the DOD Authorization bill, S. 2057, we expect a series of 
     amendments to be offered concerning the People's Republic of 
     China. These amendments, if accepted, would do serious damage 
     to our bilateral relationship and halt a decade of U.S. 
     efforts to encourage greater Chinese adherence to 
     international norms in such areas of nonproliferation, human 
     rights, and trade.
       In relative terms, in the last year China has shown 
     improvement in several areas which the U.S. has specifically 
     indicated are important to us. Relations with Taiwan have 
     stabilized, several prominent dissidents have been released 
     from prison, enforcement of our agreements on intellectual 
     property rights has been stepped up, the reversion of Hong 
     Kong has gone smoothly, and China's agreement not to devalue 
     its currency helped to stabilize Asia's economic crisis.
       Has this been enough change? Clearly not. But the question 
     is: how do we best encourage more change in China? Do we do 
     so by isolating one fourth of the world's population, by 
     denying visas to most members of its government, by denying 
     it access to any international concessional loans, and by 
     backing it into a corner and declaring it a pariah as these 
     amendments would do?
       Or, rather, is the better course to engage China, to expand 
     dialogue, to invite China to live up to its aspirations as a 
     world power, to expose the country to the norms of democracy 
     and human rights and thereby draw it further into the family 
     of nations?
       We are all for human rights; there's no dispute about that. 
     But the question is, how do we best achieve human rights? We 
     think it's through engagement.
       We urge you to look beyond the artfully-crafted titles of 
     these amendments to their actual content and effect. One 
     would require the United States to oppose the provision of 
     any international concessional loan to China, its citizens, 
     or businesses, even if the loan were to be used in a manner 
     which would promote democracy or human rights. This same 
     amendment would require every U.S. national involved in 
     conducting any significant business in China to register with 
     the Commerce Department and to agree to abide by a set of 
     government-imposed ``business principles'' mandated in the 
     amendment. On the eve of President Clinton's trip to China, 
     the raft of radical China-related amendments threatens to 
     undermine our relationship just when it is most crucial to 
     advance vital U.S. interests.
       Several of the amendments contain provisions which are 
     sufficiently vague so as to effectively bar the grant of any 
     entrance visa to the United States to every member of the 
     Chinese government. Those provisions not only countervene 
     many of our international treaty commitments, but are 
     completely at odds with one of the amendments which would 
     prohibit the United States from funding the participation of 
     a great proportion of Chinese officials in any State 
     Department, USIA, or USAID conference, exchange program, or 
     activity; and with another amendment which urges agencies of 
     the U.S. Government to increase exchange programs between our 
     two countries.
       Finally, many of the amendments are drawn from bills which 
     have yet to be considered by the committee of jurisdiction, 
     the Foreign Relations Committee. That committee will review 
     the bills at a June 18 hearing, and they are scheduled to be 
     marked-up in committee on June 23. Legislation such as this 
     that would have such a profound effect on U.S.-China 
     relations warrants careful committee consideration. They 
     should not be the subject of an attempt to circumvent the 
     committee process.
       In the short twenty years since we first officially engaged 
     China, that country has opened up to the outside world, 
     rejected Maoism, initiated extensive market reforms, 
     witnessed a growing grass-roots movement towards increased 
     democratization, agreed to be bound by major international 
     nonproliferation and human rights agreements, and is on the 
     verge of dismantling its state-run enterprises. We can 
     continue to nurture that transformation through further 
     engagement, or we can capitulate to the voices of isolation 
     and containment that these amendments represent and negate 
     all the advances made so far.
       We hope that you will agree with us and choose engagement. 
     We strongly urge you to vote against these amendments.
           Sincerely,
         Craig Thomas, Chairman, Subcommittee on East Asian and 
           Pacific Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations;
         Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and 
           Natural Resources;
         Chuck Hagel, Chairman, Subcomm. on International Economic 
           Policy, Committee on Foreign Relations;
         Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on 
           Foreign Relations;
         John F. Kerry, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on East Asian 
           and Pacific Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations;
         Gordon Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on European Affairs, 
           Committee on Foreign Relations;
         Rod Grams, Chairman, Subcommittee on International 
           Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations;
         Charles S. Robb, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Near 
           East/South Asian Affairs, Committee on Foreign 
           Relations;
         Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
           International Operations, Committee on Foreign 
           Relations;
         Joseph I. Lieberman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
           Acquisition and Technology, Committee on Armed 
           Services.

  Mr. WARNER. I will have an opportunity to visit with my distinguished

[[Page S6658]]

friend momentarily. I thank you very much for the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. President, I see the presence of the former distinguished 
majority leader, a member of the Armed Services Committee. I think he 
desires to seek recognition.
  So I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner. I have some remarks, but they are not on the 
bill, and I will be happy to wait until others have had a chance to 
speak on the bill, if it is so desired. I wanted to address some 
remarks to West Virginia's birthday which is on the morrow and also to 
Father's Day, which is on Sunday. But I will be very happy to delay my 
remarks until a later hour, if I can just get some indication of when I 
might be able to have the floor. I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, if he can enlighten me on this point.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might just have the floor for 
a few moments to comment on the remarks of our friend from Arkansas. It 
won't take me more than 2 or 3 minutes, if he can yield the floor for 
that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 5 minutes at 
this time and then the floor return to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I so ask.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will address our friend from Arkansas 
first. Let me add my comments to the Senator from Virginia. We were 
just informed last night that this bill was going to be brought back to 
the floor. We expected there would be the resolution of two 
appropriations bills before this bill came to the floor. We didn't know 
when the bill would come back until late last night.
  As the Senator from Virginia has indicated, there was a ``Dear 
Colleague'' letter circulated indicating objections to any 
consideration of amendments relative to China, specifically those that 
might involve visas and other things in that letter, of which I am sure 
the Senator has a copy.
  In addition, there is a specific objection which the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, as indicated in his 
letter to the majority leader, to any setting aside, or to quote him: 
``I object to any unanimous consent request designed to come to a time 
agreement on or to bring up such an amendment.'' And the amendment that 
he is referring to is any amendment in this dealing with the People's 
Republic of China.

  So as one of the managers of the bill here, the minority manager, I 
have the responsibility, as does the manager on the majority side, to 
protect Members when there are unanimous consent requests, knowing of 
objections to those requests.
  I, too, join our good friend from Virginia in expressing regret to 
the Senator from Arkansas for his inconvenience, but we were just 
informed last night. We were never asked whether or not there would be 
agreement to setting aside amendments and so forth so that the 
amendment or amendments of the Senator from Arkansas can be brought up.
  Having said all that, there is at least one of these amendments which 
I am hoping, perhaps, we might be able to get agreement on before this 
day is over; that is the fourth amendment, which has been dealt with by 
the Foreign Relations Committee. Unlike the first three amendments, 
which have not been, the fourth amendment, I understand, has been dealt 
with by the Foreign Relations Committee. Perhaps we could get that 
amendment cleared before the debate is over today. We would have to go 
back to the signers of these letters with these objections in order to 
accomplish that. But I surely would like to accommodate our friend from 
Arkansas, if we can, at least to that extent.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. Momentarily, a 
telephone message or conversation will take place with the 
distinguished majority leader, and quite likely, the writers of that 
letter. So we may have further developments here shortly, I wish to 
advise my colleague, and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I 
know you have a pressing need to return home, and we are going to try 
and accommodate everybody as much as we can.
  Mr. President, I see the presence of a distinguished member of the 
committee here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his kindness. And I also thank the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for his consideration 
and courtesy and kindness as well.

                          ____________________