[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 82 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6737-S6739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are in the process of resuming 
consideration of S. 2057, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1999. On behalf of Chairman Thurmond and the distinguished 
ranking member, I urge Senators who have amendments to the bill to 
bring their amendments to the floor. Last Friday, Chairman Thurmond, 
together with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, 
cleared some 45 amendments to this important bill. The majority and 
minority staffs of the Committee on the Armed Forces will continue to 
work today with others and Members to get further amendments cleared.
  I remind Senators that a cloture vote on S. 2057 will occur tomorrow, 
at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation 
with the Democrat leader. And if cloture is imposed, all nongermane 
amendments which have not already been adopted will be terminated. 
Therefore, I urge Senators to come to the floor. The bill will be up 
until 3 o'clock today, according to the previous order. Hopefully, we 
can conclude a profitable day towards further concluding this bill 
which must be concluded this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just clarify what my colleague 
from Virginia said. My understanding is that the present parliamentary 
situation is that no amendments can be offered unless that is done with 
unanimous consent; is that correct?
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We are urging people to come to the floor and try to 
obtain that unanimous consent. But those Senators who do have 
amendments that have not been agreed to are not able to offer those 
amendments at this time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in response to the observation of my 
distinguished colleague, the situation is that there are pending 
amendments, of course. I hope my colleague and I, and such others who 
are managing this bill throughout the day, can work out accommodations 
and perhaps get unanimous consent for other amendments so we can 
proceed. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S6738]]

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since we do have a lull in the 
proceedings, I have filed two amendments that together would 
incorporate in this year's defense bill the key provisions of S. 2081, 
which is the National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 
1998. Consistent with the strong bipartisan support for defense 
research, I am very pleased to say that we have Senator Santorum, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Lott, Senator Frist, all as original 
cosponsors of this bill and also as sponsors of these complementary 
amendments.
  I will not, of course, try to get a vote on these at this point 
because it would require unanimous consent to do so, but I would like 
to just briefly describe what the amendments do so when the opportunity 
comes to have a vote, people will be informed.
  These amendments lay the fiscal framework for the defense research 
that is needed to achieve, early in the next century, what the 
Department of Defense calls full spectrum dominance, that is the 
ability of our Armed Forces to dominate potential adversaries across 
the entire spectrum of military operations, from humanitarian 
operations through the highest intensity conflicted.
  One of the two amendments sets goals that would result in the Defense 
Science and Technology Program budget reaching the equivalent of at 
least $9 billion in today's dollars by the year 2008; that would be an 
increase of 16 percent above today's level. The other amendment sets 
similar increased goals for the nonproliferation research at the 
Department of Energy.
  It is worth focusing on why defense research is so important. Much of 
the technology that gave the United States a quick victory with so very 
few casualties in Desert Storm came out of defense-related research in 
the 1960s and 1970s. Those kinds of results, plus the fact that our 
military remains the most technologically sophisticated in the world, 
have fostered a broad agreement that defense research is one of the 
best investments that our country makes, one providing enormous long-
term returns to our military. Even with the cold war over, there are a 
number of reasons why now is the time to vigorously invest in defense 
research.

  First, as the Department of Defense has noted, the two keys to this 
full spectrum dominance, which is the cornerstone of our strategy as we 
move forward--the two keys will be information superiority and, second, 
technological innovation.
  The Department of Defense has been the preeminent Federal agency 
funding the disciplines that undergird these two key enablers, for 
example, supporting roughly 80 percent of the federally sponsored 
research in electrical engineering, 50 percent of that in computer 
science and mathematics. No other organizations, public or private, can 
substitute for the unique role and focus of the Department of Defense 
in these research areas. We simply will not be able to achieve this so-
called full spectrum dominance without a vigorous program of defense 
research.
  A second important point is that the global spread of advanced 
technology and a nascent revolution in military affairs are creating 
new threats to the United States which will challenge our ability to 
achieve full spectrum dominance. Those are threats requiring new 
responses and requiring new technology. They include information 
warfare; cheap, precise cruise missiles and the spread of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Recent events in India and Pakistan, which I alluded to earlier, may 
have concentrated our thinking on this last problem, this threat of the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the words of the National 
Defense Panel, ``We must lead the coming technological revolution or be 
vulnerable to it.'' That said, right now we are in a relatively secure 
interlude in our international relations. We are in a time where we can 
afford to work on transforming our military forces. While the world is 
still a dangerous place, it will be even more dangerous in the future. 
So now is the time for the defense research to be accomplished, which 
is needed to achieve this full spectrum dominance.
  When you look, though, at DOD's current science and technology budget 
plans, they do not reflect these realities. The out-year budgets are 
basically flat in real terms, out to the year 2003, at a level of 
around $200 million lower than the 1998 level. This is the money that 
pays for the research and concept experimentation needed to invent and 
try out new military capabilities. Worse yet, the budget of the 
Department of Energy for nonproliferation research is slated to decline 
by about 20 percent in real terms by the year 2003.
  These budget plans are not consistent with the vision of full 
spectrum dominance. They are not consistent with the threats on the 
horizon or with the opportunity that we have today. These two 
amendments that I filed would promote budget plans that are consistent 
with the vision, threats and opportunity. What they do is this: From 
fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2008, the first amendment would give 
the Secretary of Defense a goal--not a requirement, but a goal--to 
increase the defense science and technology budget request by at least 
2 percent a year over inflation greater than the previous year's budget 
request. The other amendment gives the same 2 percent goal, 2 percent 
increased goal to the Secretary of Energy for nonproliferation 
research.
  The end result will be a defense science and technology budget that 
reaches at least $9 billion in today's dollars by 2008, an increase of 
$1.2 billion, or 16 percent over the 1998 level. The budget for 
nonproliferation research would increase it around 23 percent over 
today's level.
  These budget increases are significant for research, yet they are 
modest and achievable when you look at our overall defense budget. If 
you look at a graph of the projected Science and Technology Program 
budget under this agreement, you can see that the increases will be, 
No. 1, gradual; that is, the total increase by 2008 will be less than 
some year-to-year changes in the past. Also, the increase will be 
smooth in that they will not be a huge change from the Defense 
Department's current plans at the start. They will also be reasonable; 
the $9 billion endpoint is comparable with previous levels of science 
after technology funding.
  Achieving these increases will require some shifting the funds within 
the DOD budget. The total amount shifted will be only around half a 
percent of the total DOD budget over 10 years.
  I am extremely confident the Secretary of Defense will be able to 
make this kind of gradual shift without damaging other priorities. I am 
also quite sure that this is a priority need for our country.
  Technological supremacy has been a keystone of our security strategy 
since World War II. Supporting that supremacy has been this defense 
research. The coming decade is the time to start increasing the 
investment in our national security. These amendments are a modest 
bipartisan, sensible and achievable approach to make that investment. I 
am sure that these modest increases will yield substantial returns to 
our military.
  I hope that when we get an opportunity to vote on these amendments 
that my colleagues will join me and Senators Santorum, Lieberman, Lott 
and Frist in supporting both of these important amendments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address the ongoing debate in 
the Senate connected to the pending business, I believe, regarding 
United States relations with the People's Republic of China.
  As the Senate considers the Department of Defense authorization bill, 
S. 2057, a number of my colleagues and I have been working to try to 
find a vehicle, or vehicles, through which to present amendments to 
this bill, intended to put United States-China relations on the path 
toward what we consider to be meaningful engagement. Many of our 
amendments have already been filed. Two of these, one to combat slave 
labor in China and the other to monitor People's Liberation Army 
companies operating in the United

[[Page S6739]]

States, were adopted by voice vote last month. This shows, I believe, 
the substantial support among Senators for measures upholding 
principles of freedom and human rights and measures protecting the 
national security interests of the United States.
  Today I would like to clarify the intents of the remaining amendments 
and the context in which we hope to offer them. Put simply, I and my 
colleagues seek meaningful engagement with the Chinese Government, 
consistent with our moral principles and with our national security 
interests. On this, I believe, all Americans are agreed. Unfortunately, 
this administration's policies towards China have, in my opinion, 
failed to produce that kind of relationship. For that reason, I believe 
amendments intended to promote meaningful engagement are necessary.
  Some people have charged that any attempt to go beyond current 
policies of what I consider to be hollow engagement with China will 
necessarily lead to isolationism. I disagree. I believe a more reasoned 
approach lies between the extremes of appeasement on the one hand and 
isolationism on the other. The problem with current discussions 
regarding United States-China relations, in my view, is best 
illustrated by debates over most-favored-nation trading status. Until 
recently, debates over our relations with China have focused almost 
entirely and exclusively on whether we should extend or revoke China's 
MFN status.
  It is time, in my view, to move the discussion out of the MFN box and 
to find common means to achieve common American goals. Revoking MFN 
would punish Americans with higher prices without significantly 
affecting the Chinese Government and its policies, and it would also 
punish innocent Chinese citizens by withdrawing economic opportunities 
provided by United States trade and investment. Even in the short term, 
in my view, we should not underestimate trade and investment's positive 
impact. ``Already,'' writes China expert Stephen J. Yates of the 
Heritage Foundation, Chinese ``employees at U.S. firms earn higher 
wages and are free to choose where to live, what to eat, and how to 
educate and care for their children.''
  It is my belief that MFN, by itself, is a necessary element of any 
meaningful engagement between the United States and China. However, MFN 
alone is not sufficient to bring the changes so sorely needed in China 
or to protect the principles and interests of the United States. 
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has not pursued the policies 
necessary to make meaningful engagement possible.
  The administration has claimed that our current relationship with the 
People's Republic of China has improved through a process of 
constructive engagement. On this view, the Chinese Government has 
improved its behavior in a number of areas out of a desire to maintain 
good relations with the United States. Specific examples have been 
cited, including the release of a small number of dissidents, movement 
toward protection of intellectual property, and China's alleged 
steadiness during the continuing Asian financial crisis.

  I understand my colleagues' continuing hopes that these events might 
lead to better relations in the future between the United States and 
China. However, in my view, these hopes must be tempered by a realistic 
assessment of current Chinese Government practices and behavior. We all 
want the United States to be able to engage in an open and frank 
relationship with the Chinese Government, one in which each side can 
present its views on a broad range of issues, confident that the other 
side will promptly respond to their concerns and live up to 
international standards of human rights and mutual security.
  Unfortunately, our relationship with China has yet to reach that 
stage of mutual trust and responsibility. In particular, a clear-eyed 
view of China's human rights record shows that the hollow engagement 
that has characterized America's role in its relations with China in 
recent years has not led to substantive reform. Although the 
international community roundly condemned the Chinese Government's 
crushing of prodemocracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square along with 
the killing of thousands of student protesters and the imprisonment of 
many more, Chinese officials continue to claim their actions were 
justified. They continue to insist that their violent actions were a 
valid response to a counterrevolutionary riot.
  Indeed, Chinese officials now want to place our President at the 
scene of this crime as a sign of their righteousness. Likewise, even as 
the administration continues to claim a new era of Chinese 
nonproliferation resulting from the recent summit, fresh reports have 
arisen of Chinese assistance to Iranian missile programs and the 
Chinese decision to abandon previous assurances to observe the Missile 
Technology Regime's export control standards.
  Finally, it is important to recognize that definitive investigations 
are underway regarding the administration's export control policy 
toward China and its effect on national security. But it is also 
important to note that the administration has uniformly waived any 
sanctions for even the most egregious of Chinese actions harming our 
national security interests.
  The bottom line is that we currently lack the tools with which to 
pursue meaningful engagement with China. Current policies of hollow 
engagement allow Chinese leaders to believe that the United States will 
overlook almost any action on their part simply in order to keep them 
happy. This provides China's leaders with little incentive to change 
their behavior or beliefs to bring them more closely into alignment 
with international standards.
  The result is that our Government now constantly finds itself 
reacting to China's actions in an incoherent, ad hoc fashion. This has 
produced an unfortunate and increasing abandonment of the principles of 
freedom and defense of fundamental human rights on which our Nation is 
based, as well as a failure to fully protect the national security 
interests of the United States. The United States must, in my view, 
enunciate a clear and compelling policy disapproving Chinese violations 
of human rights and international conventions regarding national 
security. This requires, at a minimum, that we recognize that China's 
current leadership neither accepts nor acts upon the principle of 
friendship in international or domestic relations.
  Mr. President, I think this is an important debate. I think it is a 
debate that we need to have here in the Senate. I regret that the 
current procedural roadblocks that seem to exist will make it very 
difficult for us to fully act through the amendments that many of us 
would like to bring up and prevent us from having the kind of full and 
clear discussion in this debate that I think the Senate should make 
happen. Consequently, I find myself a bit frustrated today. I would 
like to applaud the Senator from Arkansas for the ongoing efforts he 
has engaged in to try to bring these issues to the floor of the Senate, 
to try to make it possible for us to have the kind of debate that I 
think many of us wish would occur.
  I hope that his efforts with many of us working together can be 
ultimately successful. If it cannot happen in the context of the 
current bill, then I think a group of us will find other vehicles 
coming to the floor of the Senate on which it can be possible for us to 
have this debate. But whether it happens now or happens later, I think 
the message to the administration should be clear and to the American 
people it should be clear: We are deeply concerned about the human 
rights policies of China. We are deeply concerned about the 
implications of their policies on American national security, and we in 
the U.S. Senate are not going to sit idly by and allow these policies 
to continue without ultimately having the kind of full and detailed 
debate, discussion and action that they require.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for about 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alaska is recognized.




                          ____________________