[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________