Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6833-S6852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2057, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2057) to authorize appropriations for 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.
Warner motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Armed Services with instructions to report back forthwith
with all amendments agreed to in status quo and with a Warner
amendment No. 2735 (to the instructions on the motion to
recommit), condemning forced abortions in the People's
Republic of China.
Warner amendment No. 2736 (to the instructions of the
motion to recommit), of a perfecting nature.
Warner modified amendment No. 2737 (to amendment No. 2736),
condemning human rights abuses in the People's Republic of
China.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 2737, As Modified

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, am I correct in my understanding, the
Warner-Hutchinson amendment is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2737 is pending.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few
minutes about that amendment which I authored and which I anticipate
Senator Warner will move, at 10:15, to table.
It has become evident to me that tabling motions in this institution
at one time were far more meaningful; that in this case there will be
an effort to vote against tabling, simply for the purpose of making
that vote meaningless. There are those who simply do not want a
straight up or down, clean vote

[[Page S6834]]

on the substance of these amendments. What they want to do is cease
embarrassing themselves by being seen voting against amendments that
are supported broadly by the American people and are substantively what
we ought to do: condemn forced abortion, deny visas to those who are
performing them, condemn religious persecution, deny visas to those who
are involved in it. Those are the kinds of things the American people
support. But those who simply want to avoid having to cast that vote at
this time are going to vote against tabling it and, by so doing,
prevent any kind of clean up or down vote on the substance of these
amendments.
There is no time agreement. We will have a cloture vote later today.
So they seem to have found a means by which, on a parliamentary basis,
they can avoid having to take a stand on what we need to be taking a
stand about.
They will argue this is the wrong time; we should not do this on the
eve of the President's departure for China. I would simply say, this
amendment, really four amendments that have been now wedded together,
this amendment strengthens the hand of our President as he goes to
China. It gives him greater voice and it gives him a greater tool as
both the House and the Senate will then have been on record on the
substance of these amendments. The President will be able to express to
the Chinese people, with the full backing of Congress, his deep concern
about these issues.
How important this is, and how much progress still needs to be made
in China, was very evident today by the headline in the Washington
Times. The headline in the Washington Times this morning is: ``Beijing
Pulls Visas of Three U.S. Reporters: Move Targets Radio Free Asia.''
In a move that is absolutely astounding, it shows that China simply
doesn't get it. In a move that reflects the fact that they simply don't
understand what freedom and liberty and a free press is all about, they
have denied visas to three reporters previously approved by this
administration to travel to China and to cover the events of the
President's visit.
I have learned to appreciate more and more Radio Free Asia and the
outstanding work they do and the outstanding job they perform and the
outstanding coverage that they provide. Now we find that these three
reporters are going to be denied the opportunity to go. The Chinese
Government has refused to give them permission to come because--why?
Because, apparently, they are afraid that some of that coverage might
put the Beijing government in a poor light.
As I mentioned yesterday, in my remarks on the floor, Newsweek
magazine chose this edition, on the eve of the President's trip, to
highlight the new China. In fact, the cover article is headlined, ``The
New China.'' I would only quote one portion of the article:

In large measure, the central question surrounding
Clinton's trip is whether China has really changed since
1989.
Walking around the glittering shopping malls of Beijing,
talking to the members of the newly affluent Chinese middle
class, it is plain that China is not the country it was 9
years ago. Official language has changed; China's leaders no
longer deny what happened in Tiananmen Square, but focus on
what has happened since--an embrace of market economics and
new political and legal rights. More important, on the
streets and in the media, ``unofficial'' China is giving real
shape to such rights.

I will repeat that last sentence, ``Unofficial China is giving real
shape to such rights,'' political and legal rights, that is.
The question before this Senate is what is official China doing? And
it is obvious from the headline in the Washington Times today, the
story that they broke, that Beijing pulled the visas of three U.S.
reporters, indicates what official China is doing today is yet, still,
very deplorable.
In the State Department report on China for 1997, the human rights
report on China, they have section 2, dealing with respect for civil
liberties. In particular, they address this issue of a free press and
our State Department's report says:

There are 10,000 openly distributed publications in China,
including 2,200 newspapers. During the year, the Central
Propaganda Department instructed all provinces and
municipalities to set up a special team to review
publications.

Now listen:

All media employees are under explicit, public orders to
follow [Chinese Communist Party] directives and ``guide
public opinion'' as directed by political authorities. Both
formal and informal guidelines continue to require reporters
to avoid coverage of sensitive subjects and negative news.
Journalists also must protect State secrets in accordance
with State Security Law. These public orders, guidelines, and
laws greatly restrict the freedom of broadcast journalists
and newspapers to report the news and leads to a high degree
of self-censorship. In October leading dailies in China
carried a translation of a major policy speech by a foreign
official; however, a lengthy section on human rights was
dropped from the translation.

I believe our State Department report on human rights conditions in
China once again reflects very clearly how far China has to go and how
deplorable civil rights and human rights conditions in China really
are. And in the particular area of freedom of speech and press, we find
there is a very, very rigid censorship that controls the media in
China.
Nowhere was that censorship more evident than in Beijing's decision
to pull the visas of these U.S. reporters seeking to provide coverage
on the President's trip. I urge all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate
to read in its entirety the China Country Report on Human Rights
Practices for 1997. It is in fact, I believe, a great eye-opener and
deals not only with the area of the press, but deals with the issues of
forced abortions and religious persecution which the amendment that is
pending before this body deals with explicitly.
Mr. President, as we will be voting on this motion to table at 10:15
today, and we think about the issue of forced abortions, I have heard
in recent days China apologists explain that really what is going on in
China isn't all that bad. And the defense goes something like this:
China's official family policy, family planning policy, forbids
coercion; it forbids forced abortions or forced sterilizations. They
will say that is the official position of the Chinese Government. The
problem is, that has never been codified. It has never been written
down.
So while the Beijing authorities will say, ``Yes, we do not tolerate
forced abortions or coercion in family planning practices,'' that has
never been codified and put into the law of the land in China.
The Chinese Government will acknowledge that local officials, under
great pressure to meet population targets, sometimes utilize these
coercive practices. So while they will argue this is not the public
policy of China to permit coerced abortions, they will acknowledge,
because such targets are placed and such financial incentives are
placed over local officials, that local officials sometimes go over the
edge and will use these coercive practices in enforcing the one-child
policy in China.
In defense of the fact that these practices are tolerated, China will
explain that it is a very large country, and it is simply impossible
for the central Government to maintain and punish those who break the
official ban on coercive family planning practices. That is the
rationale that is given. China apologists, of which there are many in
this country, will say, ``We have to be understanding. They don't
officially permit this. It's local officials who get out of hand. And,
after all, China is a big country. We can't expect they're going to be
able to enforce this consistently.''
When I hear that rationale, what I immediately think of is the fact
that, according to our State Department report, every known dissident
in China has been rounded up and incarcerated. Somehow the central
Chinese Government manages to monitor and find those who might speak
out for human rights or for democracy or for freedom in China today.
The central Government has no problem in enforcing their very rigid
control of the population. And yet they want to excuse themselves from
any kind of enforcement in preventing coerced family planning practices
in China.
If the one-child policy results in pressure for local officials to
engage in force, then the central Government ought to change that
central Government policy and simply remove the kinds of incentives
that have resulted from local officials coercing women to have
abortions when they do not want to. If, according to our State
Department, all dissidents have been silenced,

[[Page S6835]]

then surely the central Government that can monitor democracy
dissidents all over the vast country can surely monitor and control
rogue officials who practice these very horrendous procedures on
unwilling women in China.
The Chinese authorities, in 1979, instituted the policy of allowing
one child per couple, providing monetary bonuses and other benefits as
incentives for that one-child policy. In subsequent years, it has been
widely reported that women with one living child, who become pregnant a
second time, are subjected to rigorous pressure to end the pregnancies
and undergo sterilization.
Forced abortions and sterilization, Mr. President, have not only been
used in Communist China to regulate the number of children, but to
eliminate those regarded as ``defective'' under China's very inhumane
eugenics policy. They call their law the natal and health care law.
What a misnomer. This law requires couples at risk of transmitting
disabling congenital defects to their children to use birth control or
undergo forced sterilization.
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 is found in an effort to eliminate the presence of
children with handicaps, to eliminate the presence of children with
illnesses or other characteristics they might consider to be
``abnormal.'' That eugenics policy is abhorrent and it is morally
reprehensible. It is the practice, it is the law of the land in China
today.

The amendment that is before us would address this issue. It would
put us on record in condemning this practice and be at least a symbolic
step in denying visas to those for whom there is credible evidence are
involved in the practice.
Chinese population control officials, working with employers and work
unit officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles, incredibly
enough. They subject women who conceive without Government
authorization--they do not have a certificate to conceive--to extreme
psychological pressure, to harsh economic sanctions, including
unpayable fines and loss of employment, and in some instances physical
force.
It has been estimated that China commits about a half a million
third-trimester abortions every year. Most of these babies are fully
viable when they are killed. Virtually all of these abortions are
performed against the mother's will.
Steven Mosher, the director of Asian studies at California's
Claremont Institute, can personally account to seeing doctors carrying
chokers. These chokers are similar to the little garbage ties that we
use to tie up garbage bags. They are placed around the little baby's
neck during delivery. The baby then dies of a painful strangulation
over a period of about 5 minutes.
To my colleagues, I say a government that would force women to
undergo these kinds of grisly procedures has no conception of and no
respect for human rights.
On June 10, my colleague in the House, Chris Smith, the chairman of
the Human Rights Subcommittee on International Relations, held a
hearing on this ongoing practice in China. Gao Xiao Duan, the former
head of China's Planned Birth Control Office from 1984 to 1988,
provided powerful testimony about what she went through, what she was
called upon to enforce, and her own nightmarish experience until she
was unable and unwilling to live with a guilty conscience because of
what she was doing. She resigned. She left. She got out of that grisly
business.
Well, it is that kind of practice, along with what I have in the past
elaborated on related to religious persecution that is ongoing in China
today, on which this body needs to take a stand. The House of
Representatives voted for these measures, and voted for them
overwhelmingly. The forced abortion provision in the House of
Representatives passed by a vote of 415-1. And it is time that the
Senate quit stalling and quit dragging its feet, quit avoiding these
issues.
It is time that we faced the abuses in China forthrightly and
honestly. And I believe, far from embarrassing the President as he
makes this trip to China, it is incumbent upon us to strengthen his
ability to address human rights issues at Tiananmen Square and in
dealing and meeting with Government officials throughout China,
throughout his 8-day visit in China.
So I ask my colleagues to rethink the desire of many to avoid a clean
up-and-down vote on the substance of these amendments, which, frankly,
I have heard no one get up and argue that this is the wrong position to
take or this should not be the public policy of our country. Instead, I
have heard vague talk that we should not vote at this time with efforts
to try to avoid taking a clear stand on this issue.
I commend the Washington Post on their editorial today of June 23. I
ask unanimous consent that editorial, ``The Case of Li Hai'' be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, June 23, 1998]

The Case of Li Hai

Li Hai, 44, a former teacher at the Chinese Medical
College, is serving a nine-year sentence in Beijing's
Liangxiang Prison. His crime: assembling a list of people
jailed for taking part in pro-democracy demonstrations in
Tiananmen Square in 1989. From the Beijing area alone, he
documented more than 700. Of those, 158--mostly workers,
rather than students--received sentences of more than nine
years and are presumed still held. Many were sentenced to
life in prison, from a 22-year-old named Sun Chuanheng to a
76-year-old named Wang Jiaxiang. Li Hai himself was convicted
of ``prying into and gathering . . . state secrets.''
We thought of Mr. Li as we read President Clinton's
explanation in Newsweek yesterday of ``Why I'm Going to
Beijing.'' Mr. Clinton wrote of the ``real progress--though
far from enough'' that China has made in human rights during
the past year. That progress, according to the president,
consists of the release of ``several prominent dissidents'';
President Jiang Zemin's receiving a delegation of American
religious leaders; and China's announcement of its
``intention to sign'' an important international treaty on
human rights. That's a rather threadbare litany, even before
you take account of the fact that two of the three releases
for which the administration takes credit relate to
dissidents who have been forced into exile, and that China
has not said when it will ratify the human rights treaty,
even if--as President Jiang stated in a separate Newsweek
interview--it signs the document this fall.
How meager these accomplishments in human rights really are
becomes clear when you stack them up against the
administration's own decidedly modest goals back in 1996,
when it already had downgraded the priority of human rights.
According to reporting by The Post's Barton Gellman, the
Clinton administration offered China a package deal in
November of that year: It would no longer support a United
Nations resolution calling attention to China's human rights
abuses if China would release seven prominent dissidents,
sign two international treaties on human rights, allow the
International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Chinese
prisons and establish a forum of U.S. and Chinese human
rights groups. When China failed to fully meet any of the
demands, and rebuffed the United States on two of them, Mr.
Clinton said that was good enough. This again calls to mind
what is disquieting about his China policy: not that he is
pursuing a policy of engagement but that the engagement too
often is on China's terms.
Tomorrow Mr. Clinton will leave for China, the first
president to visit since the Tiananmen massacre. His aides
promise that he will speak out on human rights while there,
and there is a chance he will meet with the mother of a
student killed in Tiananmen. The first could be valuable if
his remarks are broadcast on Chinese television; the second,
an important symbol, especially because many relatives of
Tiananmen victims continue to be persecuted and harassed. But
Mr. Clinton's remarks, above all, should be honest. For the
sake of Li Hai, the 158 he documented and the many he did not
find, Mr. Clinton should not trumpet ``real progress'' in a
human rights record where no such progress exists.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will quote a portion of that editorial today from
the Washington Post:
Li Hai, 44, a former teacher at the Chinese Medical
College, is serving a nine-year sentence in Beijing's
Liangxiang Prison. His crime: assembling a list of people
jailed for taking part in pro-democracy demonstrations in
Tiananmen Square in 1989. From the Beijing area alone, he
documented more than 700. Of those, 158--mostly workers,
rather than students--received sentences of more than nine
years and are presumed still held. Many were sentenced to
life in prison, from a 22-year-old named Sun Chuanheng to a
76-year-old named Wang Jiaxiang. Li Hai himself was convicted
of ``prying into and gathering . . . state secrets.''
We thought of Mr. Li as we read President Clinton's
explanation in Newsweek yesterday of ``Why I'm Going to
Beijing.'' Mr. Clinton wrote of the ``real progress--though
far

[[Page S6836]]

from enough'' that China has made in human rights during the
past year. . . .
Tomorrow Mr. Clinton will leave for China, the first
president to visit since the Tiananmen massacre. His aides
promise that he will speak out on human rights while there,
and there is a chance he will meet with the mother of a
student killed in Tiananmen. The first could be valuable if
his remarks are broadcast on Chinese television; the second,
an important symbol, especially because many relatives of
Tiananmen victims continue to be persecuted and harassed. But
Mr. Clinton's remarks, above all, should be honest. For the
sake of Li Hai, the 158 he documented and the many he did not
find, Mr. Clinton should not trumpet ``real progress'' in a
human rights record where no such progress exists.
Mr. President, exactly so. We should not create progress where it
does not exist. We should not pretend that there is progress where it
has not been demonstrated. The exile of high-profile dissidents, their
exile to the United States, people who are then told, you are free so
long as you never return to your homeland, your fatherland--this is
what is hailed as human rights progress? I, for one, will say no, that
is not true.
The abuses are great. It is time that the U.S. Senate took its stand.
It is time that the U.S. Senate quit avoiding our responsibility, as
the elected representatives, to the people of this country and that we
be willing to simply cast our own convictions on these amendments, that
we not, through parliamentary tactics, through what is now called
``throwing a vote,'' try to make a vote meaningless by everyone voting
contrary to their own beliefs so as to avoid a clear up-or-down vote on
which the American people can make a judgment.
Let there be no mistake. Let's all understand what we are doing when
we vote at 10:15 today. For those who are opposed to these amendments,
to vote against tabling is a vote of deception to the American people.
It may, in the minds of many, make this vote meaningless. Let us be
sure in this country in which freedom reigns, in which the American
people, I think, are quite discerning--they will be able to see through
the charade of simply circumventing a vote on substance. They will be
able to see the pretense of voting one way when you believe another, so
that you can avoid voting on the substance and say this is a bad thing,
for us to condemn forced abortions, we shouldn't do that; it is a bad
thing for us to deny visas for those involved in it; it is a bad thing
for the U.S. Government to condemn religious persecution, the
persecution of minorities in China, Tibet. No one says that, and yet
the efforts were made to avoid a substantive vote on these amendments
today.
I mentioned just a moment ago the high-profile dissidents who have
been exiled from their homeland, none of those more prominent than Wei
Jingsheng. It has been my privilege and honor to get to know some of
those dissidents, who have been exiled, who now in this country
advocate for democracy in their homeland. The story of Wei Jingsheng is
one of the most intriguing and most inspiring.
I am quoting now from Orvile Schell's ``Mandate of Heaven'':

Wei Jingsheng, a young electrician working at the Beijing
zoo, and editor of a publication called ``Explorations,''
became one of the most trenchant critics of the Chinese
Government. On December 5, 1978, he posted a critique of
Deng's Modernization Program that insisted that modernizing
agriculture, industry, science and technology and national
defense without also embracing a fifth modernization, namely,
democracy, was futile. That was his crime. He dared to
critique his leaders' philosophy by saying, ``We may
modernize agriculture, industry, science, technology, and
defense, but unless we have structural change in the area of
democracy, it will be futile.''

That was his crime.
Then Wei Jinsheng asked this:

``What is true democracy?'' his wall poster asked. It means
the right of people to choose their own representatives, who
will work according to their will and in their interests.
Only this can be called democracy. Furthermore, the people
must have power to replace their representatives any time so
that these representatives cannot go on deceiving others in
the name of the people. We hold that people should not
give any political leader unconditional trust. Does Deng
want democracy? No, he does not, asserted Wei. Then as if
he were engaged in an actual face-to-face with Deng, Wei
Jingsheng added, we cannot help asking, what do you think
democracy means if the people do not have a right to
express their ideas freely? How can one speak of
democracy? If refusing to allow other people to criticize
those in power is your idea of democracy, then what is the
difference between this and what is euphemistically called
the dictatorship of the proletarian?
Wei was soon arrested. Wei was sentenced to 15 years in
prison on charges of having sold state secrets to a
foreigner. In jail, he became a troublesome reminder of the
party's arbitrary power to suppress political opposition,
until he was finally released in the fall of 1993 in an
effort by the Chinese government to enhance its chances of
bringing the 2000 Olympic games to Beijing.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a point of inquiry?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KERRY. We have a vote at 10:15, and there are a couple folks who
hope to make a comments. Could the Senator perhaps indicate to the
Senate when he might be concluding?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was on the verge of concluding my remarks.
Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague. I apologize.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was quoting from Orvile Schell's ``Mandate of
Heaven,'' the background and inspiring story of Wei Jingsheng, who went
to prison, spent many years in prison, because he dared to say
democracy isn't democracy until there is freedom to criticize your
elected officials.
The headline today in the Washington Time says it all: ``Beijing
Government Denies Visas to Three Reporters.''
They do not understand freedom. We need to take a stand in this body
to say that the practices and the human rights abuses that continue in
China are wrong. If they will say that, we will do what is within our
power to truly engage the Chinese, the Chinese government, by
confronting them where they are wrong, encouraging them where they are
making progress.
This administration has done too little. This amendment today can be
a step in the right direction. It can be a step in which we take a
forthright stand for human rights and convey a message as our President
goes, convey a message to the Chinese Government, that human rights are
taken seriously in this country, that human rights will not take a back
seat to trade.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate raises
very, very serious issues that I think all of us have some strong
feelings about, hopefully on the same side of the issue. I can't
imagine there is a Member of this body who would support religious
repression, forced sterilization, forced abortion, or the other
activities which too often occur in this world, including in China.
It is because this amendment raises such serious issues that it seems
to me there are going to be many people who, understandably, are going
to want to pursue what those issues are and to see whether we should
not, indeed, address those activities, not just for China but for
wherever they occur.
One of the questions which this amendment raises is religious
repression--intolerable, anywhere. Intolerable, whether it occurs in
China or in Saudi Arabia or any other country.
This amendment is aimed exclusively at China. The issues that it
raises are incredibly serious; the activities that are described are
incredibly reprehensible and deplorable, wherever they occur. The
question is whether or not this country should adopt a policy of
denying visas and, if so, whether or not it is a policy which is
manageable; can we determine which of the hundred of thousands of visa
applicants--for instance, which were issued to Chinese nationals--
probably millions in other countries--can be investigated. If so, by
whom and under what circumstances? Is it a practical policy?

On the Armed Services Committee, we have not held hearings on this.
This is not something that comes within our jurisdiction. This is a
Foreign Relations Committee issue, which they, hopefully, have either
looked at or will look at. This has to do with the State Department and
Justice Department, not the Defense Department.
So we are sitting here with a defense bill, being presented with a
very serious issue that should be dealt with, I believe, generically,
wherever the activity occurs, and it should be aimed at any country--
not just at one, but all countries where these activities occur--and it
should be a policy that can be implemented.
Does this amendment meet that test? I think there are people who feel
that,

[[Page S6837]]

no, it doesn't. But it raises such serious issues that we ought to find
a way to deal with these issues. I am one of those people. I am second
to none in terms of my opposition to religious repression. My family
has felt enough of that through our generation. I am second to none in
terms of what I believe is the reprehensible character of a forced
abortion or a sterilization policy. We don't have to take second seats
to each other in terms of our abhorrence of those kinds of activities.
But I would hope that, as a body that tries to deliberate on a policy
and apply it wherever it should be applied, we would take enough time
to ask ourselves if forced abortion is reprehensible, and do we want
anybody who perpetrates it to have a visa. If so, apply it uniformly;
if not, apply it uniformly.
We have an amendment which says the top leaders of the country--the
policymakers--are exempt from the denial of a visa. The Cabinet
officers in China, presumably, who make policy, can get visas; but any
200,000 nationals of China are supposed to be investigated to see
whether or not they implemented a reprehensible policy. You let the
Cabinet officers off the hook, but the 200,000 nationals beneath the
Cabinet officers are the ones whose visa applications presumably are
supposed to be investigated. Why are we letting the policymakers off
the hook? Why do they get visas to come in here, but people who may or
may not have been implementing the policy are the ones whose visa
applications will be investigated?
We have a 1,500-page book, ``State Department Analysis of Human
Rights Violations Around the World.'' It is a very useful book. Just
open to a page just about anyplace--on page 1,561 it relates to Saudi
Arabia: ``The Government does not permit public non-Moslem religious
activities. Non-Moslem worshipers risk arrest, lashing and deportation
for engaging in religious activities that attract official attention.''
Now, the policy of denying visas may or may not be workable, but we
surely ought to apply it uniformly where the activity is as
reprehensible in one country as it is in another. But the amendment
before us doesn't do that. It singles out a single country; it singles
out 10 pages of those 1,500 pages and says that this is where we are
going to apply the visa denial policy. Is that what we want to do as a
Senate? Should we take the time to decide whether or not we want to do
it that way? I think we ought to. Is a policy of religious persecution
or forced abortion as reprehensible if it occurs there, as well as if
it occurs elsewhere? I think it is.

So what we have before us is a very, very sincere effort to address a
real human rights problem--more than one--pages and pages of human
rights problems in China. I said 10, but I wasn't sure; it could be 50
for all I know. These are huge human rights violations in China--huge.
The Senator from Arkansas is correct in pointing them out, in my book.
I give him credit for pointing them out. But there are issues that are
raised, which must be addressed by a Senate that is serious about
addressing these issues uniformly, generically, wherever they exist. In
my book, that is what we should try to find a way to do.
Can we do this on a defense authorization bill? I do not believe that
we are going to be able to resolve these issues here. Should we
acknowledge that the issues are indeed real ones? I think we should
find a way to do that.
So there is going to be some real reluctance, in my judgment--honest
reluctance, may I say to my friend from Arkansas--to table an amendment
from those who nonetheless have questions as to whether or not this
amendment should apply to people who engage in activities wherever they
engage in them, not just in China, and should apply to top level
officials, not just to the 200,000 nationals beneath them who applied
for visas. So however people vote on the motion--and I hope everybody
is troubled by the activity equally and with the same commitment and
passion as our friend from Arkansas--I believe that will reflect, in
their judgment, a decision as to whether or not the issue is an
important issue, as I believe and I think all of us believe it is, but
also how do we deal with it on a defense authorization bill. That is an
honest dilemma that people feel.
So the suggestion that people who will vote against tabling may
disagree with the Senator from Arkansas, I don't believe is a fair
accusation about many of us who will vote against tabling. Many of us
who will vote against tabling have a lot of issues that we feel should
be resolved relative to the issue that has been raised by the Senator
from Arkansas--honest, legitimate improvements that could be made or
considerations that could be made on the points he has raised,
including the few that I have just enumerated here. Do we want to apply
this to top officials? If so, why are they given exemption? Do we want
to apply it wherever the activities occur, not just in China? If so,
why is this limited to China? Is this a workable process when you have
millions of visa applications--200,000 from China alone? We don't know
on the Armed Services Committee. We have surely not had an opportunity
to have a hearing into this subject, which I think would have been
highly useful prior to this amendment coming to the floor.
Mr. President, there will be an effort, I know, to table this, or a
motion that Senator Warner hopes to make around 10:15. I know there is
at least one other speaker who wants to be heard.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is no more important role that the
U.S. Senate plays than its role to advise and consent on treaties, as
well as its larger role on foreign policy. In the 14 years that I have
had the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate, I have watched the
Senate choose carefully, usually, how it exercises that authority.
We have had some great debates here in the Senate at appropriate
times over issues of enormous consequence to our country. And our
efforts have usually been--I can remember some of these debates very
well, whether it was over the Contras, or over the appointment of
nuclear weapons in Europe, or over relationships with China
previously--that where Presidents have been executing their
constitutional authority on behalf of our country to engage in direct
diplomacy, the Senate has tried normally to exercise both restraint and
good judgment about what we choose to take up, when, and how as it
might affect those policies.
I know that there has always been a conscious effort in the Senate to
try to be judicious about respecting the ability of the President of
the United States to speak for the country. I know from personal
history here that there were times when President Reagan, or President
Bush may have been poised to travel to another country and engage in
direct diplomacy, and we were beseeched by our colleagues not to raise
X, Y or Z issue in a particular way, not to raise it but in a
particular way that might do mischief to the larger interests of the
country.
I simply am confounded and disturbed and troubled by what is
happening here.
One might ask the question: What has happened to the U.S. Senate?
What has happened to the disparate issues within this body where we try
to reach across the aisle in the interests of our country and put
politics aside just for a few days and a few hours?
There isn't anybody in the U.S. Senate who doesn't understand how
horrendous the policies of China are with respect to human rights. And
there are 365 days a year where we can choose to make that clear in any
number of ways, and we do, whether in hearings, or in press
conferences, or even in legislation. But to be coming to the floor of
the U.S. Senate the day before the President of the United States
leaves to speak for our country--not for a party, for our country--and
diminish the capacity of that President to go to China carrying the
full measure of support of the Nation is nothing less than mischievous
and partisan.
I think it is entirely appropriate for any Senator to give any speech
he or she wants whenever he or she wants. Any Senator can come to the
floor at any time and raise an issue. That is appropriate. Any Senator
can have a series of press conferences. Any Senator can introduce
legislation. But what are we doing amending the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act on the Defense Act without even having hearings
within the Foreign Relations Committee? And why is it that we are
suddenly

[[Page S6838]]

discussing satellite technology when everybody knows that about every
committee in the U.S. Senate has an investigation going on and none of
them have reported back? None of them they have reported back. Yet,
here we are with legislation on satellite technology which has no
purpose other than to try to play a partisan political hand.
What is horrendous about this is that it isn't just transparent. It
isn't just partisan. It isn't just obvious. It is dangerous. It is
damaging.
It diminishes the ability of the President to go with a sense that he
has sort of a clear playing field, if you will, an ability to be able
to play out what has been a carefully thought-out, several-month
strategy of how to engage in this particular summitry.
It has already been made difficult enough by another set of issues.
India and Pakistan have altered 50 years of understanding with respect
to nuclear weaponry. We have huge issues about Tibet, enormous issues
about the Asian flu. Holding China to its promise to maintain the
valuation on its currency, not to devalue; enormous issues with respect
to Burma, Cambodia where they are trying to hold elections and restore
what was a huge U.N. investment in democracy; enormous interests with
respect to the South China Sea; relationship with the Spratly Islands;
China and its aggressiveness within that region; a whole set of any
issues with respect to North Korea as a consequence of what has
happened with respect to India and Pakistan and North Korea's
statements that they now want to move to abrogate the agreements that
we reached with respect to nuclear weaponry and nuclear power.
Those are substantive, significant, enormous issues that go so far
beyond day-to-day partisanship and concerns of party. It is mind-
boggling.
So what excuse is there for turning the defense authorization bill
into a bonanza for political gamesmanship with respect to China on the
eve of the President leaving? I think it is inexcusable,
notwithstanding the merits of the amendment. No one is going to argue
the merits of the amendment. What American is going to stand up and
say, ``Oh. I am for forced abortion?'' I mean is this really the issue
that we ought to be dealing with in the context of DOD right now? No.
It certainly is an issue worthy of dealing with at any time. And I am
confident that the President of the United States could raise that and
a whole host of issues with the Chinese.
This morning we had a breakfast with the Secretary of State talking
about her trip to China. I didn't notice the Senators of concern here
with these amendments at that breakfast working on what she might be
raising. I didn't notice them at a number of briefings recently with
Sandy Berger or other people working on the precursor effort to lay
down what might happen there. There is a world of difference between
trying to achieve these things, and in a realistic way, and playing out
the politics on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, I cannot say enough. This institution has a great
tradition. And some of that tradition is a great part of history.
Senator Vandenberg made a name that stays in history based on a
willingness to reach across the aisle. Traditionally, every time we
have ever seen a President go, I have heard talk on the floor of the
Senate about how we ought to be judicious and how we ought to be
cautious and how we ought to strengthen the hand of the President and
not engage in this kind of politics, as appropriate as the substance
and merits may be. And they are. There is no issue about the substance
and the merits here; none whatsoever. It is 100 to nothing as to what
you are going to do. But that is what even makes more of a mockery of
the politics of it because it is 100 to nothing, because this is so
clear it even underscores more, I think, the meddling nature and the
politics of what is happening here.
Mr. President, I know there is a desire to try to have a vote now. I
am saddened to see the Senate engage in this kind of activity in the
hours before the President of the United States goes to engage the most
populous nation in the world and a nuclear power in the most serious
set of discussions we have had in a long time, in my judgment. It is so
inappropriate that I think we should just not have a series of votes on
this measure until we make up our mind that we are going to legislate
intelligently and seriously about the issues of the defense
authorization bill and not a set of larger foreign policy goals.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that everyone is expecting a vote
shortly, and the distinguished Senator from Virginia has noted that he
will be making a motion to table in just a moment. But I want to take a
couple of minutes simply to applaud the two previous speakers.
Let me thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the Senator
from Massachusetts both for their eloquence and their passion with
which they articulated their views. Clearly these issues deserve a lot
more attention and consideration and careful thought than what they
have been given so far.
We have heard a couple of speeches; that is it. As the Senator from
Michigan has noted, these deserve an opportunity to be heard and
thoughtfully considered in ways that ought to include committee
consideration, ought to include other amendments, ought to include
other countries. And that, in essence, is what argument the Senator
from Michigan made, I think, with a great deal of authenticity and
authority this morning.
Then the issue of timing. Mr. President, if there was ever a question
about what it was these amendments were truly designed to do, it is
simply, as the Senator from Massachusetts noted, designed to embarrass
the President of the United States on the eve of his trip.
That is what this is about. And I hope Republicans and Democrats
understand, what comes around goes around. And I hope everyone
understands that, in the past moments of equal import, this isn't what
the Senate did, this isn't the way the Senate operated; on a bipartisan
basis, we would send the head of state off to another country with a
clear understanding that we would stop at the water's edge when it came
to sending the wrong message, that we would send President Bush to
another country with the realization that we were behind him, that we
would send President Reagan to Reykjavik with a clear understanding
that he had very big issues he had to deal with and we were going to
protect his right to stand united for this country in negotiations as
important as they were.
Time after time, in situation after situation, we put politics aside.
We knew what we had to do. We knew there was a time for politics, there
was a time for issues, and there was a time to pull together as
Americans, saying, look, we don't support you, Mr. President, on
virtually anything, but when it comes to this, what could be more
important?
Well, there are some in this Chamber who have come to the conclusion
that that is no longer the way we do business here. We do not care what
message we send about the importance of American unity. We do not care
whether progress is going to be made on a historic trip of this kind.
We do not really care whether or not he comes back with a collective
appreciation of new accomplishments having to do with trade and maybe
even human rights and shipments abroad and abortion and all of the
other issues dealing with human rights. That doesn't matter, because we
want to make our points on the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I hope we take a collective step back. I hope we take
a good look at what message this sends. And I will tell all of my
colleagues, I see this as a procedural vote. I am not going to vote to
table, because I am not going to allow one single vote on China this
week. And if we are going to play this game, we are not going to have
any votes on defense either. I am going to be voting against cloture,
because I don't want to see any votes on defense, any votes on China,
any votes that are as reckless as they would be cast were we to have
votes this afternoon or on any other issue regarding China or other
matters pertaining to defense.

[[Page S6839]]

So it is over. We might as well pull this bill. We are not going to
have those votes. We are not going to embarrass this President. We are
going to stick to procedural votes, and we will let everybody make
their own decision. But we are not going to have votes on substance
when it comes to issues of this import.
So, Mr. President, that is my position. I hope my colleagues will
subscribe to it. I hope that we can come back to our senses and do the
right thing, come together in a bipartisan way and send the right
message. We are not doing that right now.

I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as one of the comanagers of this bill,
together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr.
Thurmond, I receive that news as very disheartening. It is imperative
that the defense bill go forward. As you know, Defense Appropriations
is prepared to complete their work. And if you get out of sync the
authorizations/appropriations cycle, it does not work to the benefit of
the overall Department.
On this issue, there is a bipartisan feeling. I am going to move to
table, against the will of a considerable number of my colleagues, and
I know that there are others here who are going to join me; I don't
know what in number. So it is not, I think, quite the political
structure as our distinguished Democratic leader has observed.
So, Mr. President, what I would like to do is to ask unanimous
consent that I be recognized in 5 minutes for the purpose of tabling,
and that 5 minutes is to accommodate the Senator from California so
that she might make her remarks.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, if there is going to be
additional time allotted--the Senator from Arkansas spoke; the Senator
from Massachusetts spoke--if there is going to be additional time
allotted, I believe it ought to be allotted on an equally shared basis.
If additional Senators are going to speak, this Senator would like to
speak for an equal amount of time, whatever that time is.
Mr. WARNER. I know the leadership is quite anxious to have this vote.
Why don't we just ask for--say I be recognized in 8 minutes--for 4
minutes on this side and 4 minutes on this side in the control of--does
the Senator from Indiana wish to control the 4 minutes?
Mr. COATS. I would be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, let me inquire of the
manager, the Rose Garden signing for our agriculture research bill
occurs at 10:30. My hope had been that the vote would occur--I think
that perhaps was the manager's intent--so that those of us involved in
that legislation could be there. Therefore, the additional time gives
some of us a problem.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might just speak with the Democratic
leader.
Mr. President, we did our very best to accommodate the Senator from
California. The Senator from Virginia now moves to table amendment No.
2737 and asks for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 2737. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), and the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 82, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

YEAS--14

Cochran
Grams
Hagel
Jeffords
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Warner

NAYS--82

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Bennett
Chafee
Domenici
Specter
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2737) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for division on the Hutchinson
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is divided.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered on division I.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
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 inquire of the Senator from
California as to how long she would foresee speaking? There were a
number of comments made as to my motivation on this amendment and
questioning the timeliness. I would like to have an opportunity to
respond.
In addition, we have a division on the amendment and I would like to
speak to that division of my amendment.
Rather than yielding for a lengthy speech, I think we need to proceed
with the division.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may respond, I will try to
truncate my remarks to the distinguished Senator.
This is a major interest of mine. I believe I have some things to say
about the resolution, the situation in general, which have some merit.
There is no time agreement at the present time, and I have been
waiting.
I would like to make my remarks in their entirety.

Division I Of amendment 2737, as modified

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the pending business is the division,
the first amendment dealing with forced abortions. I would be glad to
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California to make some remarks,
but I would really like----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer would observe there is
no time agreed to.
The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
California be granted 5 minutes.
Mr. DASCHLE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection is heard.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate deals
with forced abortions, forced abortions in China. Some of the comments
earlier regarding this amendment questioned my motivation in offering--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.

[[Page S6840]]

There was an objection to the request by the Senator from California
in regard to her request, so the Senator from Arkansas has the floor
and the Senator is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank you, Mr. President.
Questions were raised as to my intention and motivation in offering
an amendment on forced abortions in China. I would like to point out to
my colleagues who question my motivation of the timing of the
amendments, these are amendments, word for word, that passed the House
of Representatives last year. They passed the House of Representatives
last year.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will not yield for a question at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator declines to yield.
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The question was raised as to the timing of these
amendments being offered. The accusation was made this is strictly to
score political points. I have no desire to score political points. I
would have greatly desired to have the amendments voted on 1 month ago,
2 months ago, or 6 months ago.
Those who have followed the China policy debate will be well aware
that these amendments passed the U.S. House of Representatives last
year, have been pending in the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate
for months, and have languished in that committee without having a
hearing.
Therefore, I think it was perfectly appropriate to file these
amendments. The forced abortion amendment was filed more than a month
ago on the Department of Defense authorization bill. The provision in
the overall amendment dealing with religious persecution in China was
filed May 18, well over a month ago.
I remind my colleague there was never any intent that somehow this
debate, on the eve of the President's trip to China--if we had not had
a 4-week hiatus in debating tobacco in this Chamber, perhaps we would
have had DOD up a month ago and would have had an opportunity to have
these amendments voted on a month ago. But that wasn't the case. To
question my motivation and the motivation of many of my colleagues who
feel very deeply about the human rights abuses that are ongoing in
China today, I think, is to do us a disservice; and to question our
patriotism is wrong. In fact, to question our support for the President
as he makes this trip is wrong, because I do support him. To the extent
that he will raise human rights issues, to the extent that he will
engage Chinese leadership on nuclear proliferation and proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and to the extent that the President will
engage the Chinese leadership on trade issues, I support him for that.
I am glad for that. I believe the amendments I have offered will
strengthen the President's ability to deal with the Chinese Government
on these sensitive human rights issues.

We have talked somewhat about the forced abortion provision. I think
it is an important part of this. The very powerful subcommittee hearing
that Congressman Chris Smith had only a couple of weeks ago, which
received wide publicity, perhaps brought to a new level the awareness
of the American people regarding the terrible practice of coerced
abortions and coerced sterilizations in China today. That is the
amendment that is before us at this time.
People have questioned why we should deal with China and not deal
with the broader context of a host of human rights abuses that exist
around the world. During the course of the debate on China, I have
heard repeatedly that we should not try to isolate China and that one
out of every four people in the world lives in China. That is why it is
worthwhile for us to deal with the human rights abuses in this nation
singularly and specifically. And, truly, the kinds of practices that
have been all too commonplace in China deserve our attention.
I also point out to my colleagues that the issue before us in this
amendment is not one of being pro-life or being pro-choice, because
people on both sides of the life issue condemn the kinds of practices
that are going on in China today in which coerced abortions are used in
too many cases, where the one-child family planning policy has not been
adhered to.
So I believe that not only is this a timely amendment, in the sense
that it passed the House last year and has been languishing--we have
not had an opportunity. Amendments were filed over a year ago. It is
quite appropriate that we deal specifically with the case of China and
the abuses that are going on there. Once again, had the President
delayed the trip, if he were going in November, I would still be
pushing for these amendments to be voted on now. I am not a Johnny-
come-lately to the China debate. We were involved in this during the
MFN debates during my 4 years in the House. This is an issue I feel
strongly about. It is an issue I am simply not going to be quiet about.
I think if we are to highlight the kinds of freedoms that we as
Americans cherish on the eve of our President's trip to a country that
is repressed--and today we found out that even three reporters with
Radio Free Asia are being denied visas--this is an opportunity for us
to do it. We can do it in this country by even disagreeing, at times,
with the foreign policy of our country.
(Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for two questions?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, without losing the floor, I will be glad to
yield for a question.
Mr. KYL. The Senator just mentioned the denial, or the reported
denial, of visas for three people from Radio Free Asia who, as I
gather, wanted to be part of the trip to China and to accompany the
President's entourage to report on defense. Do I understand that to be
the news report that the Senator from Arkansas was just referring to?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the Senator, it is my understanding that
they had already been approved by the administration to travel to China
and that it was only at the 11th hour that the Chinese Government
denied their visas and their right to go and provide coverage for the
President's summit in Beijing.
Mr. KYL. Right. It seems to me--and this is the predicate for my
second question--many of us are uncomfortable with some of the
sanctions that we have automatically initiated. I personally have some
concern about the sanctions on India and Pakistan, for example,
notwithstanding the objection, of course, to what they did. The
question has been asked: If not sanctions, then what?
I remember when I was in the House of Representatives asking the
question of the then-Secretary of Defense, what kind of foreign policy
options do we have diplomatically, economically, militarily, and so on,
if we are not going to invoke sanctions, trying to affect policies in
other countries that we have deep disagreement with, including the kind
of policies the Senator from Arkansas was talking about. One of his
answers was that there are literally hundreds of decisions each week
that are made by various Departments of the U.S. Government, as well as
private entities, that have some impact on our relationships with
another country.
One of the things I recall having been mentioned was visa policy, for
example. Now, the Chinese Government appears to be using the granting
or denial of visas to make points with respect to their foreign policy.
If the Senator from Arkansas is correct--and I recall the news report
this morning--they are actually denying the visas of three people whom
they have a beef with because they have been involved in sending
signals, radio transmissions about freedom, to their country, and
apparently they don't like that. One way of dealing with it is to deny
the visas of these three people--at least, if I have that correct.

My question to the Senator from Arkansas is: Is it his view that
policies such as dealing with visas of people wanting to travel from
another country to China are perhaps another more focused, more
targeted, more sophisticated way to deal with some of these policy
issues than just slapping on sanctions--although there are appropriate
sanctions--depending on what the situation is?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I appreciate the question. I think the Senator is
exactly right, that visas and the denial of visas can be used to make a
political point.

[[Page S6841]]

The irony of the vote we just cast has not been lost upon you. I hope
it hasn't been lost upon the people of the United States. We basically
denied a vote and we rejected the possibility of voting up or down on
denying visas for those where there is credible evidence that they are
involved in forced abortions or religious persecution. We do that on
the day that, as the news reported, the Chinese denied visas to those
seeking to report on news events, to report to the people of China what
is going on at the summit.
So it is highly ironic. I know Senator Kyl has been greatly involved
in the broader reform of our sanctions laws. I think that is a
worthwhile endeavor. But that effort does not preclude us from taking
these kinds of narrowly targeted actions. That is why the amendment
dealing with forced abortions and the denial of visas to those involved
in forced abortions and forced sterilization is an appropriate step for
us to take, short of MFN, short of trade sanctions, but still with the
ability to send a very powerful message.
Mr. KYL. May I ask one other question?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield for a question without losing my right
to the floor.
Mr. KYL. The headline is ``Beijing Pulls Visas of Three U.S.
Reporters; Move Targets Radio Free Asia.''
Deep in the article, it is noted that the three reporters were not
all American citizens, but that is really irrelevant to the point here.
The point is that the Chinese Government, apparently, uses the granting
or denial of visas as a way to effectuate aspects of its foreign
policy. It would be difficult, therefore, it seems to me, for the
Chinese Government to argue that there is anything wrong with the
United States Government using that same kind of visa authority to make
points with respect to our foreign policy.
My question is this: If it is United States policy that the kind of
forced sterilization and abortion policy China has is inimical to the
human rights and freedoms that we enjoy here in the United States and
have urged upon the Chinese people, then why would it be inappropriate
for the United States Government to use the very same--let me rephrase
the question. What would lead us to think that the Chinese Government
would have any right to object to the use of visa policy, since the
Chinese Government itself has used visa policy to effectuate their
foreign policy considerations?
Why would there be any objection, per se, to the use of visa policy
by the United States?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Your logic is compelling. There should be no
objection to the United States utilizing denial of visas as a
furtherance of our foreign policy and our belief in human rights,
because it is now obvious that it is the practice of the Chinese
Government, when they feel it is in their security interests or their
national interests, to deny visas. They have no compunction about doing
that. In fact, to me, as we look at the buildup to this trip, there has
been a lot of give and take, a lot of negotiating that has gone on. It
seems to me that we have made many concessions in leading up to this
trip. We have been concerned about embarrassing, about causing them to
lose faith, about being insensitive to their situation. But for the
Chinese Government to deny visas for Radio Free Asia reporters I think
is a tremendous kick in the teeth to the American Government and to the
American people, who value the freedom of the press so preciously and
put such high esteem upon that freedom.
So it is unfortunate that this has happened, and it is, I think, all
too reflective of the attitude of the Chinese Government toward the
freedom of the press and freedom in general to have made this
clampdown. They just do not seem to get it--rounding up dissidents in
Tiananmen Square in preparation for the President. We would rather have
a protester there. How heartening it would be to the American people to
see someone holding up a sign saying ``Free Tibet'' there in Tiananmen
Square. But no. Their idea is stability at all costs, even if that
means repression of the Chinese people.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the Senator from Missouri while
controlling the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT. If I am not mistaken, Congressman Smith held a pretty
dramatic set of hearings, and there was testimony at the hearing about
forced abortions in China. Is the Senator aware of that hearing?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am quite aware of that hearing.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I suppose that the Senator is aware of the testimony
that was given at that hearing.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the Senator from Missouri, in answering the
question, that I am quite aware of the testimony. I have examined
closely the testimony that was presented, especially by Ms. Gao Xiao
Duan.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is this the woman who was there at the site,
understanding exactly what was happening there?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. She was actually the director, it is my
understanding, and supervised and implemented the one-child policy.
Further yielding for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So she was the person who was implementing a one-child
policy, which was a policy of forcing abortions for subsequent
pregnancies.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is my understanding. And she was quite accurate
in her testimony.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Did she say there were techniques used to make people
get abortions, that there was intimidation?
I have heard they threatened to burn houses and that they did other
things that would intimidate individuals.
Was that part of the testimony?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. It indeed was.
Let me read one statement that Ms. Gao Xiao Duan made in her
testimony. She said, ``In all of those 14 years I was a monster in the
daytime injuring others by the Chinese Communist authorities' barbaric,
planned birth policy. But, in the evening, I was like all other women
and mothers enjoying my life with my children. I could not live such a
dual life any more. To all those injured women, to all those children
who were killed, I want to repent and say sincerely that I am sorry.''
That was very powerful testimony that she presented that day.
She did talk about methods of intimidation and the fines that were
enforced, as well as the physical intimidation, and the carrying them
off to jail if they refused to have an abortion, and the very severe
physical methods that were used, as well as the financial.
Yielding for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. There was incarceration. I am asking the Senator: If
the woman refused to get an abortion, she would be hauled off to jail?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Beyond that, they would take the resources, by fining
her, that she might otherwise use to support her family.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct. They called them--
``population jail cells'' was the terminology that she used. Women were
rounded up, held in population jail cells, forced and coerced to submit
to the killing of their children. There was, I think, an eye opener for
the American people to hear this very powerful testimony.
Mr. ASHCROFT. This is the testimony of an individual who was involved
in the practice. Is this some American reporter who has testimony or an
individual who was part of this operation?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. In responding to the question of the Senator from
Missouri, she was the former head of China's planned birth control
office from 1984 to 1998. For 14 years she held that position. Only
recently did she leave.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Was her testimony such that this was an isolated
incident, or was her testimony that this was the kind of pattern or
practice that had been done over a term of years?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. It was presented as being a very common practice. I
think maybe that was part of what was so shocking. I say to the Senator
from Missouri, in response to the question, that the presentation in
defense of China has been that these are isolated instances of coerced
abortion and forced sterilizations, that they are in remote areas,
difficult areas to enforce, that the central Government doesn't approve
of this, local forces simply do it on their own. I think the testimony
of this person, who was the head of the office, actively involved in
it, demonstrates this was a very systematic, planned program of
coercion that was used across the nation in villages and cities.

[[Page S6842]]

Mr. ASHCROFT. I take it the Senator doesn't use the word ``coercion''
lightly. This isn't just an abortion clinic; this is a place where
people were forced to go to have abortions.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct. I did not use the term
``coercion'' lightly. I think ``coercion'' has to be beyond merely
fines, although fines can very be intimidating. Homes were wrecked and
destroyed, and the person wasn't able to pay the fine, if they violated
the one-child policy.
I yield for a further question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator telling me that if the person was jailed
and fined and the fines somehow didn't deter the individuals, their
homes were destroyed?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct. That is why I think the term
``coercion'' is the proper term, because it involved physical force.
They would be physically removed. They would be taken to jail cells.
They would be forced to have an abortion.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator's amendment is designed to say that the
United States of America--I am asking the question--will not extend
visas to individuals who were involved in this kind of coerced abortion
activity?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Responding to the Senator, this amendment condemns
the practice, which I am sure everybody in this Chamber would. It goes
further and says that visas will be denied to those individuals for
whom there is credible evidence that they have been involved in
perpetrating the practice of coerced abortions. That credible evidence
would be determined by the Department of State, by the Secretary of
State herself, if need be.
When we talk about enforcement, when we talk about the number of
people involved, we are talking here, speaking in this amendment, about
credible evidence, and there are human rights groups as well who
monitor the conditions in China, who monitor human rights abuses in
China, who come forward with reports. And there will be and has been
from time to time evidence of individuals who are involved in this
horrendous practice. We would say those individuals for whom there is
credible evidence that they have been involved in forced abortions
should not be allowed to receive a visa and travel to the United
States.
Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask the Senator one more question?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So the Senator's amendment is not to deny a visa to
someone who had an abortion or someone who has participated in an
abortion clinic that wasn't a coerced abortion. You are just focused on
this situation where people were intimidated, coerced, sometimes
jailed, sometimes fined, sometimes actually had their homes demolished
to force them to destroy an unborn child. Your amendment focuses on
persons who are involved in that kind of coercive behavior to force
individuals--who want to preserve the life of the child--to destroy the
child. Those individuals are the ones that would be denied a visa to
enter the United States by this amendment.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. In response to the Senator's question, it is the
perpetrator that we are concerned about, it is the person who is
enforcing this terrible inhumane policy, brutal policy, grizzly
practice of the Government. This certainly isn't the victim. This is a
very pro-victim amendment. We want to defend the rights.
I might add again, as I said before, that this is not a pro-life,
pro-choice issue.
We are dealing here with a practice that is condemned by all
civilized societies and that is coerced; forced abortions using
physical force to compel a woman to have an abortion against her will.
To vote on this, whether it was a month ago, or whether it be 6 months
ago, or on this, the eve of the President's trip, in no way would
undercut the ability of the Chief Executive of this country to speak
about our foreign policy and our values as a people. In fact, I believe
sincerely this will strengthen the ability of our Chief Executive, our
President, to go to China, to go to Beijing, to speak with Chinese
officials and to defend our values with the full support of the Senate
and the House of Representatives and the American people.
Mr. ASHCROFT. May I ask another question?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield for an additional question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Chinese have intimated that they can't control
coercive abortion activity in remote regions. I think the testimony we
have heard belies that, but the Chinese officials say this is in remote
areas. Would the Senator say that China also is unable to control
political discussion and political dissent, or are they pretty good at
controlling political dissent and just not very good at controlling
coerced abortions?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. In response to the Senator's question, what belies
the contention that this is a matter of enforcement, what belies the
defense that the China apologists make that these are remote areas, it
is a vast country, that there is no possible way to prevent some of
these abuses, what belies that is, in fact, our own State Department's
report which indicates that all political dissidents have been rounded
up; that they are--if you hold a protest in some distant province, I
assure you the central Government is going to know about it and that
you are going to be dealing with the central Government. And so the
ability of the central Government to control free speech, free press,
freedom of expression really refutes the notion that they are unable to
enforce a policy against coerced abortions.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Would the Senator say----
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield for an additional question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator would say, then, that if the Chinese
Government were as vigorous in its defense of the freedom of
individuals to have children without destroying them as it is to
repress the freedom of people to speak against the government, there
would be a far different situation in China today?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I certainly agree with that statement. I agree. In
answering the question, I think that is a correct assertion; that if as
much intensity were placed on opening China, on encouraging free
expression, on encouraging dissent, as there is on the enforcement of
repressive family planning policies and coercive family planning
policies, then I think it would be a far different China, and there
would be a far different attitude by the American people and by our
Government.
The President is correct. I do not believe we can reach our full
potential in our relationship with China until we see a revolution in
the structure of China, until we see a revolution in freedom in China.
I believe that will come. The question is does it come through the
current policy, which I think fails to fully engage.
You know, those of us who are critics of the current administration's
China policy have been called isolationists. I believe the real
isolationists in this debate are those who want to turn a blind eye to
things like coerced abortions, those who want to pretend that religious
persecution is not going on in China and don't want to address it. So
when we find those today who say this is the wrong timing and we don't
want to vote on this, this isn't the appropriate time to vote on
coerced abortion, this isn't the appropriate time to vote on religious
persecution, that appears to me to be something other than an
engagement policy. That would seem to me to be an isolationist policy.
We don't want to engage them. We should. We should engage them on a
full range of issues, including human rights.

And my concern about this administration's policy is that human
rights, which at one time was placed on the first tier, when President
Clinton, then candidate Clinton said he would not coddle dictators from
Baghdad to Beijing, that now is dropped from the first tier to at least
the third tier, with trade being No. 1; security, to the extent it is
being engaged, No 2; and human rights dropping down to No. 3. I
believe, if we are going to have a policy of engagement--and truly have
a policy of engagement--we must fully engage them equally on all of
these fronts.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield for another
question?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield for another question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator from Arkansas feel that the way China
treats its own citizens--its willingness

[[Page S6843]]

to coerce them into having forced abortions--reflects the way they feel
about human rights and the way they feel about the rights of citizens
around the world? And would he care to comment on how that might
reflect the rather callous view of the Chinese who are targeting
American citizens with what they call city-buster nuclear weapons on
their ICBMs? Does the Senator think there is a relationship between
this disregard for life that is expressed in coerced abortion policy
and the willingness to target peace-loving people in the United States
with city-buster nuclear weapons on long-range ICBMs?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. In response to the Senator's question, I would say to
the Senator from Missouri that, indeed, there is a relationship. I
believe that when life is cheapened in one area, whether that is
demonstrated through forced labor, slave labor camps, laogai camps, as
they are called in China; whether it is demonstrated through religious
persecution and the exile and execution of religious dissidents,
religious minorities, or whether it is demonstrated through coerced
abortion practices, the cheapening of human life carries over into all
aspects of a nation's policy. So the willingness of the Chinese
Government, according to the CIA report, to have 13 of their ICBMs
targeting the American cities--and as the Senator calls them, city-
busters, because the purpose is to have a wide devastation--I think it
is related, directly related to that cheapening of human life and the
lack of respect for the dignity of human life.
So I would respond to the Senator that way. I certainly think there
is a relationship. I appreciate the Senator's question.
I would just say in concluding on this amendment that our own State
Department in issuing its China Country Report for 1997 on Human Rights
Practices in China addressed this issue of forced abortions. I will
only read a small portion of the State Department's report. I think it
underscores how serious the situation is. This isn't something that
human rights activists on the left and the right in the United States
are dreaming up. It is not some fiction that we have created. Our own
State Department, in examining the human rights conditions in China,
has assessed it this way.

Penalties for excess births can also be levied against
local officials and the mothers' work units, thus creating
multiple sources of pressure. Fines for giving birth without
authorization vary, but they can be a formidable
disincentive. According to the State Family Planning
Commission 1996 family planning manual, over 24 million fines
were assessed between 1985 and 1993 for children born outside
family planning rules. In Fujian, the standard fine has been
calculated to be twice a family's gross annual income.

That is to violate the family planning rulings in China makes you
suspect, makes you vulnerable to a fine that would be twice your gross
annual income. That is an incredibly difficult burden to place on this
kind of a so-called violation.

Additional unauthorized births incur fines assessed in
increments of 50 percent per child. In Guangzhou the standard
fine is calculated to be 30 to 50 percent of 7 years' income
for the average resident. In some cases a ``social
compensation fee'' is also imposed. Unpaid fines have
sometimes resulted in confiscation or destruction of homes
and personal property by local officials. Central government
officials acknowledge that such incidents occur, but insist
that cases like these are not the norm nor in line with
official policy.
The government prohibits the use of force to compel persons
to submit to abortion or sterilization, but poor supervision
of local officials who are under intense pressure to meet
family planning targets can result in instances of abuse
including forced abortion and sterilization.

And the report goes on into great detail, and I think provides clear
documentation for the need for this amendment.
I think also if you consider, once again, the testimony that was
presented before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and
Human Rights, the testimony concerning the implementation of the
abortion policy of China and the one-child policy of China is truly
frightening. I will simply read some of these points to establish the
routine the family planning bureau is following:

I. To establish a computer bank of all women of child-
bearing age in the town [whatever town size it might be],
including their dates of birth, marriages, children,
contraceptive ring insertions, pregnancies, abortions, child-
bearing capabilities, etc.
II. To issue ``birth-allowed certificates'' to women who
meet the policy and regulations of the central and provincial
planned-birth committees, and are therefore allowed to give
birth to children. . . . Without a certificate, women are not
allowed to give birth to children.

You have to apply. You have to get a certificate. You have to get
permission to birth a child.

Should a woman be found pregnant without a certificate,
abortion surgery is performed immediately, regardless of how
many months she is pregnant.

I spoke earlier that estimates range as high as a half-million third
trimester abortions in China each year. And then, to issue ``birth not
allowed'' notices. Such notices are sent to couples when the data
concludes that they do not meet the requirements of the policy and are,
therefore, not allowed to give birth. A couple whose first born is a
boy, or whose first born is a girl but who give birth to a second
child, boy or girl, receives such a notice after a period of 3 years
and 2 months. Such notices are made public. The purpose of this is to
make it known to everyone that the couple is in violation of the
policy, therefore facilitating supervision of the couple.
They issue birth control measure implementation notices. They impose
monetary penalties on those who violate the provincial regulations.
Should they refuse to pay these penalties, supervision team members
will apprehend and detain them as long as they do not pay.
The PBO regularly supervises and examines how staff members of
Planned Parenthood offices in 22 villages perform their duties. They
write monthly synopses of the planned birth reports, which are signed
by the town head and the town Communist Party. They analyze informant
materials. They have established, in China, a system of informants in
accordance with the informing system, and have put these cases on file
for investigation.
They have planned birth cadres. There was testimony before
Congressman Smith's subcommittee indicating that these cadres, and the
number of people involved in this program, has increased dramatically
in recent years, indicating that rather than retreating from this
coercive practice, they, instead, are pursuing it with new vigor.
We go on in this testimony. I think it should be a concern to all
Americans that this practice is being tolerated and that we have not
taken, as the foreign policy of our country, a strong, strong position
which this amendment would allow us to do.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arkansas for
his outstanding work in this respect. I believe this is an item upon
which the Senate must vote, ought to vote, should vote. I am distressed
that the minority leader has indicated that votes on these issues would
be inappropriate. It seems like they are an embarrassment, potentially,
to the President. I think the policy which we have pursued is an
embarrassment to the United States of America, and I think we need to
change our policy to make clear that we reject the kind of activity
which has been spoken of by the Senator from Arkansas.
With that particular thought in mind, and understanding the merit of
this particular division, which would deny visas to those who have been
actively involved and for whom credible evidence has been developed in
the coerced abortion area, I move to table the first division of
Senator Hutchinson's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The assistant 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. I further ask unanimous consent that the motion be
temporarily laid aside for Senator Feinstein to speak. Following her
statement, no later than 12:30, the tabling vote to occur.

[[Page S6844]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is now recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on this occasion to share
several thoughts. Let me begin by saying, on the amendment before us, I
don't believe there is any Member of this body who is for forced
abortion. I do not believe there is any Member of this body who would
countenance it, who believes it is good public policy and who is
reserved about saying that. Therefore, I think we would all hope the
President of the United States would come back with a specific
commitment in this area from China.
The question I have, that is deeply disturbing to me, is the Senate
is being asked to consider amendments on China policy on the eve of,
and even during, President Clinton's visit to China. There used to be a
bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in this country. There used to
be an understanding that when the President is going overseas, Members
of both parties would come together, would wish him well, and would
support him. I think, certainly in the last 10 or 15 years, this has
been the case. I am very concerned that some are using U.S. policy and
China as a political or a partisan issue.
I note, with some disappointment, that no Republican of either House
has agreed to accompany the President on his trip. To me, this gives
credibility to the assumption that the Republicans are going to use the
trip in a political way. And I think this is very, very dangerous. What
I hope to point out in my remarks is some of the danger inherent in
this kind of policy.
Let me, for a moment, talk about the amendments that are before us.
Many are controversial. Some would ban various officials from entering
the United States; others would prohibit the United States from
supporting international loans to China; many run counterproductive to
achieving progress with China. Rather, they push division and they
encourage China's historic isolationist tendencies.
Just yesterday, language was added that would move the jurisdiction
of certain technological export controls from the Commerce Department
to the State Department. This is a serious proposal. It is worth
looking at. But the majority and minority leaders have appointed task
forces to study the issue and assign various committees to look into
it.
The vote on this proposal today would be to render a verdict on an
investigation when that investigation has barely gotten underway.
Anyone who thinks the President's trip will be made more successful by
the Senate's consideration of these issues knows very little about
China.
I think the President's trip represents an important step forward in
building a healthy United States-China relationship. We have major
interests. Human rights? Of course, including religious freedom and
autonomy for the people of Tibet.
For 9 years, I have been bringing messages from the Dalai Lama to the
President of China asking that there be discussions between the two. I
hope that the President will plead that cause, both with President
Jiang Zemin as well as in his public addresses in university settings.
But right now the times are extremely urgent. We have a kind of
economic meltdown going on throughout most of the Asian continent. And
this financial crisis is combined with the very serious situation with
respect to India and Pakistan.
To underline the dangers that India, Pakistan, and, indeed, the
entire international community are faced with on the eve of this trip,
I would like to take a few minutes here today to review what we know
about the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs, their capabilities,
and what would likely result in a nuclear exchange between India and
Pakistan if we are unable to forge a real and lasting peace in the
region and the current south Asian political and security environment.
First, what kind of nuclear weapons did India and Pakistan test?
The Indian Government claims to have tested three different designs
on May 11, 1998: a fission bomb with a yield of 12 kilotons, explosive
power equivalent to 12,000 tons of TNT; a ``thermonuclear device,''
with the yield of 43 kilotons; and a ``low-yield'' device. On May 13,
India claims to have tested two additional devices that produced a
total yield of less than 1 kiloton.
For comparison, the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 produced an
estimated yield of 18 kilotons. So one of these Indian tests was over
2\1/2\ times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
According to leading nongovernmental analysts, the low-yield device
tested in May of this year was likely a compact design intended for
deployment on India's medium-range missiles. The subkiloton tests,
according to India, provided information needed to perfect computer
simulations of nuclear explosions that could be used in subsequent
weapons design work, possibly without the need for future testing.

For its part, Pakistan claims to have detonated five simultaneous
nuclear tests on May 28, of boosted devices made with highly enriched
uranium, which Samar Mobarik Mand, head of their nuclear test program,
claimed produced a total yield in the range of 40 to 45 kilotons. Bear
in mind again, Hiroshima was 18. Pakistan conducted an additional
nuclear test on May 30. Mand claimed the yield was in the range of 15
to 18 kilotons.
Pakistan has stated that all six tests were boosted fission devices,
some of which are designed for deployment on the new Ghauri medium-
range missile. The head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, A.Q.
Khan, claims that although Pakistan has not built a hydrogen bomb, it
has conducted research and is capable of building such a device should
the Government decide to do so.
U.S. intelligence, as well as independent analysts, have raised some
serious questions about the claims made by both India and Pakistan
regarding the number and yield of the tests each has claimed to have
conducted. Although there is a certain reassurance to be found in these
questions--perhaps neither India nor Pakistan is as far along in
developing nuclear weapons as they might like us to believe--
ultimately, such quibbling rings hollow.
Regardless of the exact number or the exact yield of the Indian and
Pakistani tests, these tests have made it abundantly clear that both
India and Pakistan must now be considered capable of developing and
deploying nuclear weapons, and that both hope to gain political and
security leverage from this capability.
Secondly, although neither India nor Pakistan are now nuclear weapons
states, given their demonstrated capabilities, how many nuclear weapons
could India and Pakistan make?
India's nuclear bombs are fueled by plutonium, a manmade byproduct of
fissioning uranium in nuclear reactors. At the end of 1995, India had a
total inventory of 315 to 345 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium,
according to a study of world plutonium and highly enriched uranium
inventories by independent analysts David Albright, Frans Berkhout, and
William Walker.
Assuming that 5 kilograms of plutonium are required to build a bomb,
this would give India enough plutonium for some 63 to 69 weapons. So
let us assume they have that ability.
Pakistan's bombs are fueled with highly enriched uranium, enriched at
its unsafeguarded centrifuge facility at Kahuta. Under pressure from
the United States, Pakistan halted production of highly enriched
uranium in 1991, but reportedly resumed highly enriched uranium
production some months ago. After last month's tests, Pakistan still
possesses 335 to 400 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, enough for
some 16 to 20 nuclear bombs, according to the Institute for Science and
International Security.
If Pakistan is using boosted warhead designs, as it claims, it would
produce a considerably larger number of weapons from the same amount of
material, depending on the considerations of yield and weight of
individual warheads.
In addition, earlier this year, Pakistan's unsafeguarded plutonium
production reactor at Khushab went into

[[Page S6845]]

operation. It is estimated that this reactor can produce enough
plutonium for at least one to three bombs a year.
Thirdly, how would India and Pakistan deliver these nuclear weapons?
Both nations possess advanced military aircraft that would be capable
of delivering nuclear weapons. India's military deploys such aircraft
as the Jaguar, the Mirage 2000, the MiG-27, and the MiG-29. Pakistan's
military aircraft include nuclear-capable, United States-supplied F-16
fighters.
Of greater concern, because of their speed and invulnerability to
conventional air-defense systems, are both nations' ballistic missiles.
India's Privthi missile, based on the U.S. Scout, has a range of 150-
250 kilometers, depending upon the size of the payload. The two-stage
Agni missile, based upon Soviet and German technology, has a much
greater range, 1,500 to 2,500 kilometers. India claims the ability to
hit targets anywhere in Pakistan with the Agni missile.
Pakistan is believed to have about 30 nuclear-capable M-11 missiles
supplied by China. This is a bad thing. The second load of M-11s, to
all intents and purposes, have never been delivered. We believe it is
important that the President secure, ratify, and maintain the
commitment that no further M-11s be sent by China to Pakistan. These
missiles have a range of 280-300 kilometers.
Pakistan's recently developed Ghauri missile, developed with the
Chinese' and North Korea's assistance, has a range of 1,500 kilometers.
Its flight tests in early April may have been one of the factors that
moved India's Government to resume nuclear testing.
A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb, claims that the nuclear
devices tested by Pakistan ``could very easily be put on our Ghauri
missiles.'' According to Kahn, Ghauri is the only nuclear-capable
Pakistani missile at this time but other missiles could be modified for
the mission if necessary. These missiles reduce warning time on both
sides to nearly zero, making any nuclear crisis extremely unstable.
India could hit targets in Pakistan in 4 minutes, and Pakistan could
hit Indian targets in under 12 minutes.
All of this development has been going on, and we are debating forced
abortion, but we have this ``macro'' situation evolving right on
China's doorstep.
Now, what would be the likely result of a nuclear exchange between
India and Pakistan? In 1990, when President Bush was first unable to
certify under the Pressler amendment that Pakistan had not acquired
nuclear capability, the Department of Energy requested the Program in
Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University
of Illinois to conduct a study of nuclear proliferation in south Asia.
One of the papers commissioned for that study estimates what the
casualties of that war would be if India and Pakistan were to wage war.
The study, based on unclassified sources, projected damage for three
different scenarios, depending on the size and scale of a nuclear
exchange between India and Pakistan, from a war with limited nuclear
retaliation to a full-scale exchange.
The results are chilling. At the lowest level, the study determined
that there would be between 500,000 and 1 million immediate fatalities
on each side in a limited nuclear exchange where the only targets were
military centers--500,000 to 1 million people killed in a limited
exchange of only military centers. At least another million people
would be injured in the attacks, and hundreds of thousands more could
be expected to die in the fallout and nuclear poisoning which would
follow.
In a larger exchange which would include an attack on urban centers
in both countries, this study estimated that, at a minimum, there would
be 15 million Pakistani and 30 million Indian immediate fatalities,
with millions more injured and expensive economic disruption. South
Asia would be reduced to a virtual wasteland.
These projections, I should point out, were based on a 1980 census
data projected to 1990. If these figures were recreated today, we could
expect the projections, with current census figures, to be that much
greater.

Think about the magnitude of such a disaster--45 million immediate
deaths within a matter of minutes, almost as many killed in India and
Pakistan in a few minutes as were killed around the world during the
entire 6 years of World War II. It is a number that boggles the mind.
In fact, I find it difficult to believe that I find myself here on the
floor of the U.S. Senate discussing such scenarios, such carnage, such
loss of human life; it is not within the realm of reality. Yet today
this is precisely the danger which India and Pakistan face unless both
states, with the support and assistance of the international
community--and that includes both China and the United States--are able
to take clear and immediate steps to end the current crisis and begin
the process of building peace in Asia.
This brings me to the final issue I would like to address: What is
the current security and political environment in south Asia?
In the aftermath of the tests, both India and Pakistan have indicated
a willingness to enter into peace talks. On June 12, the Indian Foreign
Ministry stated, ``India is committed to fostering a relationship of
trust and friendship with Pakistan based on mutual respect and regard
for each other's concerns.'' Pakistan has also offered to resume peace
talks. Neither side, however, appears willing to act to back up this
rhetoric. Despite their stated good intentions, as of yet there is no
agreement on a time, a place, a format, to enter into discussions to
address either the nuclear crisis or other important security issues
such as Kashmir or the south Asian security agenda.
This situation is especially troubling because without any confidence
and security-building measures in place, without any dialog and
discussion, India and Pakistan are especially vulnerable to an
inadvertent crisis or to a relatively minor incident sparking a larger
conflict.
On just this past Friday--let me give an example--June 19, the press
reported an incident in which five armed men, suspected to be Muslim
terrorists by Indian authorities, attacked a Hindu wedding party in a
mountain village in Kashmir, killing 25 people. Just a week earlier,
Pakistani authorities held Indian intelligence to be accountable for
planting a bomb on a crowded train. These are two examples of the kinds
of incidents which could well launch a nuclear episode. Without dialog,
for sure these are the sorts of events that are open to
misinterpretation, can lead to miscalculation, escalation, and tragedy
of the most horrific sort.
The President of the United States tomorrow leaves for China. We can
debate forced abortion. You have an unprecedented currency crisis in
Asia. You have major turmoil in Indonesia. You have a very serious
situation in Thailand, in South Korea. We see the Japanese yen
continuing to deteriorate even after the weekend meetings. Many people
there felt that Japan has no formula to recover. And you have the
significance and importance escalating now, that the Chinese renminbi,
the Hong Kong dollar, not be devalued. This, in itself, will take an
unprecedented act of courage on the part of the Chinese.
I believe substantial diplomatic pressure must be brought by the
President of the United States to convince the Chinese that against all
of this they must hold firm. At the same time, in China, you have an
almost impossible situation for the Chinese to maintain. You have the
closure of the large state-owned industries taking place and forcing
tens of millions of people into unemployment.
The President of China has recently said what he considers an
acceptable rate of unemployment--3.5 percent. It would be very lucky if
China could confine themselves to that figure. But to have this growing
unemployment and still refuse to devalue their currency is a major
gesture to the Western World, because what most of these countries seek
to do is cut off American markets further and flood our country with
their consumer goods at a lower cost. And this is precisely the reason
we have the trade imbalance as it is today.

So these are the macro problems, Mr. President, that I respectfully
submit to you are appropriate for the major policymaking body of the
United States of America to be deliberating--the future of the world.
And I really regret that we get into the kind of discussion that can
only have one effect: drive China to

[[Page S6846]]

be less cooperative, more inclined to devalue, but hopefully not less
inclined to care about their southern border or what North Korea is
doing over their northeastern border. But these are problems of life
and death for millions and millions of people. I feel so strongly and I
so strongly urge this body that this is not the time for divisiveness.
This is not the time for partisanship. This is not the time for some to
make hay when the President of the United States is going to Asia to
meet with the largest exploding country on Earth to try to chart a
relationship that can come to grips with the nuclear facts I have just
spelled out.
Facts. Facts of life. Facts like, if there is one single
miscalculation, like a Muslim terrorist event, another train bombing, a
premature launching of a nuclear missile, it could result in the loss
of tens of millions of lives all across the Asian continent. This is
what our leaders should be discussing --how to develop a strategic
partnership, how to force India and Pakistan to the table, how to set
up the kind of commitments that are necessary to forge a consensus on
Kashmir; how to solve India border problems with China; how to open
markets so that the trade imbalance does not continue; how to maintain
intellectual property rights in China; how to have China bring in a
retail consumer market from the United States, which they have been
reluctant to do; how to build on the rule of law.
You know, people in this body are great critics--particularly people
who have never been to China, don't know China, have never read a
history book on China, don't understand that for 5,000 years China was
dominated by one man, generally an emperor who, at a whim, at the snap
of his fingers, could put millions of people to death if he so chose;
and then the revolutionary war heroes, none of whom had any education;
and now by its first group of really educated leadership in the 5,000-
year history of that country. I have heard the President of China say
directly that, ``We will transition from a rule of man to a rule of
law, but it cannot happen overnight.''
Mr. President, if not the first American mayor, I was certainly one
of the first American mayors to visit China in June of 1979, just when
that country was coming out of the Cultural Revolution. I have often
said that what I saw there was very sobering indeed, because one
understands the body language of fear. The body language of fear was
prevalent all throughout every city in China that I visited. I have
visited China, and I try to go every year; the last time was in
September. The changes I have seen are astonishing. Now, remember, this
is still a Communist government. There is no prototype on Earth for the
kind of change that this Chinese Government is now going through.
I truly believe, as they now try what they call the ``socialist
experience,'' which we call a market economy, and as they engage with
the West, and as our military leaders are able to engage them--I will
never forget when John Glenn and Sam Nunn and I met with the Minister
of Defense, and at the end of the conversation I said, ``Do you have
anything else on your mind?'' He said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``One of the
things that I am concerned about is that we have incidents of American
fighter planes overflying Chinese borders.'' I said, ``Well, has
anything been done about this?'' He said, ``No.'' So I went out and
called Bill Perry on the phone, who was then Secretary of State, and
that was taken care of.
It has to be known by this body that, up to just less than a month
ago, there was no red telephone between our two leaders. As a matter of
fact, the first time our two leaders spoke on that red telephone was
following the Indian nuclear explosion, where our President called the
President of China on that red telephone and said, ``Look, this has
happened. Will you help?'' That is when Jiang Zemin said, ``We are of
the same mind on this.''
Now, don't we want this kind of dialog to take place? Sure, we want
to make the Chinese know that forced abortion is repugnant to a
civilized society, repugnant to our values, and it is brutal and
unfair. Sure, we want them to initiate talks with the Dalai Lama, go to
the rule of law, provide due process of law for every citizen in China.
That is the guarantee for positive human rights--due process of law.
Nobody can be arrested in the middle of the night and hauled to jail
and kept there. The first change has already been made. The Chinese
have changed administrative detention, which is the summary placement
of somebody in custody, and limited it to 30 days. We all know the
judiciary of China is under the control of the political party. This
needs discussion. The judiciary of China must be independent, it must
be paid, it must be forbidden to take money on the side. There must be
a new criminal code, a new civil code, based on a new China, a China
that is reaching out and interacting with the Western World, such as
China never has before.
The history of China must be understood in this. It must be known
that after the Boxer Rebellion, in the incident where China lost Hong
Kong in the opium wars, China was so humiliated by the West that China
turned into itself and never wanted any intercourse with the West. Now
we see China changing.
How China changes is the President's quest. Does China go back into
itself, reinforce its totalitarian nature, or does China open further
interaction with the West; have an economic democracy that one day by
the Taiwan model a social democracy must emerge?
This, I say to you, Mr. President, is the fitting goal for the
President of the United States, because that will change life as we
know it on the planet.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless there is objection, the motion to table
the previous division is set aside temporarily, and the Senator from
South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, may I inquire as to when
it will be anticipated that the vote will be on the tabling motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the vote will take place at 12:30, but no
later than that.
Mr. ASHCROFT. With the understanding that the vote will take place, I
have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside solely for the purpose of adopting a series of
amendments which have been agreed to by both sides.
I further ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of this
series of cleared amendments, that the motion to table, once again,
would become the pending business, and that the vote on the motion to
table occur no later than 12:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2942

(Purpose: To clarify the responsibility for submission of information
on prices previously charged for property or services offered)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I offer an
amendment which would amend section 2306(a) of Title X, U.S. Code, and
Section 304(a), the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 to clarify requirements for appropriate classified information by
contractors to Federal agencies.
Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond), for Mr.
Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2942.

The amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following:

[[Page S6847]]

SEC. 812. CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBMISSION OF
INFORMATION ON PRICES PREVIOUSLY CHARGED FOR
PROPERTY OR SERVICES OFFERED.

(a) Armed Services Procurements.--Section 2306a(d)(1) of
title 10, United States Code is amended--
(1) by striking out ``the data submitted shall'' in the
second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``the contracting officer shall require that the data
submitted''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Submission of
data required of an offeror under the preceding sentence in
the case of a contract or subcontract shall be a condition
for the eligibility of the offeror to enter into the contract
or subcontract.''.
(b) Civilian Agency Procurements.--Section 304A(d)(1) of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(41 U.S.C. 254b(d)(1)), is amended--
(1) by striking out ``the data submitted shall'' in the
second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``the contracting officer shall require that the data
submitted''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Submission of
data required of an offeror under the preceding sentence in
the case of a contract or subcontract shall be a condition
for the eligibility of the offeror to enter into the contract
or subcontract.''.
(c) Criteria for Certain Determinations.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be amended to include
criteria for contracting officers to apply for determining
the specific price information that an offeror should be
required to submit under section 2306(d) of title 10, United
States Code, or section 304A(d) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254b(d)).

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment which
is designed to help find a solution to the recurring problem of the
Pentagon paying exorbitant prices for spare parts that are readily
available in the commercial marketplace.
In March, we were subjected once again to troubling press accounts of
excessive prices being charged the Pentagon for spare parts--in one
case the Pentagon's Inspector General found that the Pentagon was
charged 280 percent more for commercially available items than in the
previous few years. While it is true that such instances of
overcharging are now the exception to the rule, we must do everything
we can to ensure that our limited defense resources are used wisely.
This is essential if we are to maintain public support for, and
confidence in, our military establishment.
I commend Senator Santorum for the package of legislative reforms he
has included in the bill before the Senate. The ``Defense Commercial
Pricing Management Improvement Act'' will go a long way toward setting
the Pentagon on a path to correcting the problems identified in the
recent DoD Inspector General reports concerning the Department's errors
with respect to these overpricing cases.
My amendment will build on the legislation in the bill, but will
focus on the responsibility of the contractor for providing adequate
cost and pricing data to the government. Under current law, in the case
of sole-source contracts for commercially available items, the
government contracting officer ``shall require submission of data other
than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to
determine the reasonableness of the price of the contract.'' Although
it was the intent of Congress that the contractor should supply such
data as might be requested, that was not explicitly stated in the law
and has not always been the practice. In the Sundstrand case reviewed
this past February by the DoD Inspector General, the Inspector General
found that ``Sundstrand * * * refused to provide DLA contracting
officers with `uncertified' cost or pricing data for commercial catalog
items.'' Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.
My amendment would clarify existing law to clearly reflect the
original intent of Congress by putting a positive requirement on the
contractor to provide cost and pricing data if such data is requested
by the government contracting officer. If--as in the Sundstrand case--
the contractor refuses to provide this information to the government,
the contractor would be disqualified from the contract.
If a government contracting officer is to accurately assess the
reasonableness of a contract price for a sole-source commercial item,
he or she must have access to information on prices previously charged
both the government and commercial sector for such item. We must not
allow contractors to refuse to provide such information to the
government. My amendment will close a loophole in existing law by
requiring the submission of such cost and pricing data as the
government contracting officer determines is necessary.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by this
side.
Mr. THURMOND. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman
and ranking member. It is just an effort by one Senator to see what we
can do to further eliminate the ever-present problems associated with
the $250 hammer, the $50 screw, and things of this nature, which by
virtue of the enormity of the system of procurement, will happen. But
this is an effort to see whether or not we can further curtail the
number of incidents.
I thank the Chair. I thank the manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2942) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Michigan.

Amendment No. 2943

(Purpose: To recognize and honor former South Vietnamese commandos)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kerry of
Massachusetts, McCain, and Smith of New Hampshire, I offer an amendment
that would commend the Vietnamese commandos for their service to the
United States during the Vietnam war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for Mr. Kerry, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, proposes an amendment
numbered legislative 2943.

The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1064. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE HEROISM,
SACRIFICE, AND SERVICE OF FORMER SOUTH
VIETNAMESE COMMANDOS IN CONNECTION WITH UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES DURING THE VIETNAM
CONFLICT.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) South Vietnamese commandos were recruited by the United
States as part of OPLAN 34A or its predecessor or OPLAN 35
from 1961 to 1970.
(2) The commandos conducted covert operations in North
Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict.
(3) Many of the commandos were captured and imprisoned by
North Vietnamese forces, some for as long as 20 years.
(4) The commandos served and fought proudly during the
Vietnam conflict.
(5) Many of the commandos lost their lives serving in
operations conducted by the United States during the Vietnam
conflict.
(6) Many of the Vietnamese commandos now reside in the
United States.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress recognizes and honors the
former South Vietnamese commandos for their heroism,
sacrifice, and service in connection with United States armed
forces during the Vietnam conflict.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, two years ago Senator McCain and I offered
legislation, enacted as part of the FY 97 Defense authorization bill,
to reimburse some 500 Vietnamese commandos who were funded and trained
by the United States and infiltrated behind enemy lines to perform
covert operations during the Vietnam War. Many of them were captured
and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam for years and
ultimately removed from the payroll by the U.S. government. Our
legislation authorized $20 million for reimbursement of the commandos
for their years of imprisonment in North Vietnamese prisons and
mandated that a lump sum be provided to each claimant determined
eligible by the Secretary of Defense.
Pursuant to this legislation a commission has been established in the
Defense Department and is now in the

[[Page S6848]]

process of reviewing claims. Today I am offering three amendments, with
Senators McCain and Smith (of New Hampshire) related to the commando
issue.
The first amendment, number 2943, is identical to language in the
House-passed Defense authorization bill for this year. This amendment
recognizes and honors the commandos for their heroism, sacrifice, and
service to the United States during the war.
The second amendment, number 2944, is largely technical and is
designed to assist the commission by clarifying the intent of the
original legislation with respect to the payment process.
The third amendment, number 2945, rectifies an oversight in the
original legislation. Under current law, a commando can bring a claim,
or if the commando is deceased, his spouse or children may bring a
claim. Through an oversight we failed to consider the possibility that
a commando may never have married. The amendment that I am offering
resolves this problem by stipulating that the parents, or if they are
deceased, the siblings of an unmarried commando may bring a claim.
Since the $20 million originally authorized and appropriated for
payment of these claims was based on the entire known universe of
commandos, no additional funding will be needed to implement this
amendment. Nor will this amendment put an additional undue burden on
the commission. Our original intention in authoring the commando
legislation was to make restitution to all the commandos who served us
so faithfully, even when we walked away from them. This amendment
ensures that we do that.
Mr. President, these amendments are straightforward and
noncontroversial. They are good amendments and I urge their adoption.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment
sponsored by myself, Senator Kerry, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire
to express the sense of Congress regarding the heroism, sacrifice, and
service of former South Vietnamese Commandos who fought with the United
States during the Vietnam war.
From 1961 to 1970, South Vietnamese soldiers were trained and
recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of
Defense to fight behind enemy lines on behalf of the United States.
Although the majority of these individuals were captured alive and
taken prisoner by North Vietnam, the U.S. government declared them dead
in order to avoid paying them for their services.
Senator Kerry and I sponsored legislation contained in the Fiscal
year 1997 Defense Authorization bill authorizing payment of up to
$30,000 to each Commando determined eligible by the Secretary of
Defense.
Our amendment to the FY 1999 Defense Authorization bill makes the
following findings:
South Vietnamese Commandos were recruited by the United States for
covert operations under OPLAN 34A or its predecessor, OPLAN 35, from
1961 to 1970;
The Commandos conducted covert operations in North Vietnam during the
Vietnam conflict;
Many of the Commandos were captured and imprisoned by North
Vietnamese forces for periods of up to 20 years;
The Commandos served and fought proudly during the Vietnam conflict;
Many of the Commandos lost their lives serving in operations
conducted by the United States during the Vietnam conflict;
Many of the Vietnamese Commandos now reside in the United Stats.
Consequently, our amendment recognizes and honors the former South
Vietnamese Commandos for their service to the United States. We are in
debt to these individuals for fighting valiantly on our side during the
Vietnam war. They deserve our continued support and gratitude. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2943) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment No. 2944

(Purpose: To provide for payments to certain survivors of captured and
interned Vietnamese operatives who were unmarried and childless at
death)

Mr. THURMOND. On behalf Senators Kerry, McCain and Smith of New
Hampshire, I offer an amendment that would enhance the eligibility for
payments to certain survivors of captured and interned Vietnamese
commandos who were unmarried and childless at death.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Kerry, Mr. McCain and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, proposes an
amendment numbered 2944.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 127, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

SEC. 634. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN SURVIVORS OF
CAPTURED AND INTERNED VIETNAMESE OPERATIVES WHO
WERE UNMARRIED AND CHILDLESS AT DEATH.

Section 657(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2585) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In the case of a decedent who had not been married at
the time of death--
``(A) to the surviving parents; or
``(B) if there are no surviving parents, to the surviving
siblings by blood of the decedent, in equal shares.''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Kerry and Senator Smith of
New Hampshire in offering this amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999
Defense Authorization bill to allow payment of funds to the surviving
parents or siblings of deceased Vietnamese Commandos.
From 1961 to 1970, South Vietnamese soldiers were trained and
recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of
Defense to undertake covert operations behind enemy lines on behalf of
the United States. Although the majority of these individuals were
captured alive and taken prisoner by North Vietnam, the U.S. government
declared them dead in order to avoid paying them for their services.
In 1996, Congress passed legislation I sponsored with Senator Kerry
authorizing payment of up to $40,000 to each Commando determined
eligible by the Secretary of Defense. In the case of a deceased
Commando, payment was authorized to be made to the surviving spouse or,
if there was no surviving spouse, to the surviving children of the
decedent.
Unfortunately, we did not anticipate the case of deceased Commandos
who died unmarried and thus left no spouse or children to claim
payment. Our amendment to the FY 1999 Defense Authorization bill would
expand eligibility for payments to include the surviving parents or, if
there are no surviving parents, to the surviving siblings by blood of
the deceased Commando.
Because Congress has already authorized and appropriated funds for
payment to each Commando, this amendment has no cost. However, it
serves the cause of fairness by entitling relatives of unmarried,
deceased Commandos to the payments authorized for those Commandos'
service to this country.
Although we did not intend to discriminate against unmarried
childless Commandos in our original legislation, our original
legislation unwittingly did just that.
Our amendment rights that wrong. I encourage my colleagues to support
this legislation on behalf of those Commandos who bravely served behind
enemy lines on behalf of the United States.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been
cleared by the other side.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Is there objection?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2944) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S6849]]

Amendment No. 2945

(Purpose: To clarify the recipient of payments to Vietnamese operatives
captured and interned by North Vietnam)

Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senators Kerry, McCain, and Smith of New
Hampshire, I offer an amendment that would ensure that the Vietnamese
commandos receive their rightful share of the funds authorized and
appropriated by the Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Messrs. Kerry,
McCain, and Smith of New Hampshire proposes an amendment
numbered 2945.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 127, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

SEC. 634. CLARIFICATION OF RECIPIENT OF PAYMENTS TO PERSONS
CAPTURED OR INTERNED BY NORTH VIETNAM.

Section 657(f)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 194-201; 110 Stat. 2585) is
amended by striking out ``The actual disbursement'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Notwithstanding any agreement
(including a power of attorney) to the contrary, the actual
disbursement''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Kerry and
Senator Smith of New Hampshire in sponsoring an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 1999 Defense Authorization bill to ensure that the Vietnamese
Commandos receive their rightful share of the funds Congress authorized
and appropriated in return for their service to this country.
From 1961 to 1970, South Vietnamese soldiers were trained and
recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of
Defense to undertake covert operations behind enemy lines on behalf of
the United States. Although the majority of these individuals were
captured alive and taken prisoner by North Vietnam, the U.S. government
declared them dead in order to avoid paying them for their services.
In 1996, Congress passed legislation I sponsored with Senator Kerry
authorizing payment of up to $40,000 to each Commando deemed eligible
by the Secretary of Defense. These payments were intended to be
distributed directly to the Commandos, who could then use a portion of
the funds to cover attorney fees and other costs associated with
receiving their benefit.
Regrettably, our 1996 legislation did not fully clarify the
relationship between Commandos and their attorneys for the purposes of
payments, with the result that payments have been flowing to the
Commandos' attorneys for disbursement to their intended recipients.
Consequently, our amendment seeks to clarify that the actual
disbursement of a payment under our 1996 legislation may be made only
to the person eligible for the payment, notwithstanding any agreement,
including a power of attorney, to the contrary.
It is my hope that this legislation will allow the Commandos to
rightfully receive the full payments that are their due. I encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of those Vietnamese
Commandos who sacrificed so much for this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If there is no objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2945) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2946

(Purpose: To extend the authorization and authorization of
appropriations for the construction of an automated 100-meter baffled
multi-purpose range at the National Guard Training Site in Jefferson
City, Missouri)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bond, I offer an
amendment which would extend the fiscal year 1996 authorization for the
construction of an automated multipurpose range as a National Guard
training site in Missouri.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 2946.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 323, in the third table following line 9, insert
after the item relating to Camp Shelby, Mississippi, the
following new item:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri................................. National Guard Training Multi-Purpose Range.... $2,236,000
Site, Jefferson City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2946) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2803

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding declassification
of classified information of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I call up
amendment No. 2803, which would express the sense of Senate regarding
declassification of information of the Departments of Defense and
Energy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 2803.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 268, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1064. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DECLASSIFICATION OF
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Energy should submit to Congress a
request for funds in fiscal year 2000 for activities relating
to the declassification of information under the jurisdiction
of such Secretaries in order to fulfill the obligations and
commitments of such Secretaries under Executive Order No.
12958 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq,) and to the stakeholders.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2803) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2921

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl, I call up
amendment No. 2921, which would require a visual examination of all
documents released by the National Archives to ensure that such
documents do not contain restricted data or formerly restricted data.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 2921.

The amendment is as follows:

Section 3155 of National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104-106) is amended by inserting the
following:
``(c) Agencies, including the National Archives and Records
Administration, shall conduct a visual inspection of all
permanent records of historical value which are 25 years old
of older prior to declassification to ascertain that they
contain no pages with Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted
Data (FRD) markings (as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended). Record collection in which marked RD or
FRD is found shall be set aside pending the completion of a
review by the Department of Energy.''

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared, Mr. President.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

[[Page S6850]]

The amendment (No. 2921) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2947

(Purpose: To highlight the dangers posed by Russia's massive tactical
nuclear stockpile, urge the President to call on Russia to proceed
expeditiously with promised reductions, and to require a report)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Conrad, Kempthorne,
Kennedy, Bingaman, and myself, I offer an amendment which would express
the sense of the Senate that the Russian Federation should live up to
its commitments to reduce its massive tactical nuclear stockpiles as it
agreed to in 1991 and 1992. The amendment would require the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report to Congress on Russia's tactical nuclear
weapons stockpile.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr.
Conrad, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 2947.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in subtitle D of title X, insert
the following:

SEC. . RUSSIAN NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

(a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that
(1) the 7,000 to 12,000 or more non-strategic (or
``tactical'') nuclear weapons estimated by the United States
Strategic Command to be in the Russian arsenal may present
the greatest threat of sale or theft of a nuclear warhead in
the world today;
(2) as the number of deployed strategic warheads in the
Russian and United States arsenals declines to just a few
thousand under the START accords, Russia's vast superiority
in tactical nuclear warheads--many of which have yields
equivalent to strategic nuclear weapons--could become
strategically destabilizing;
(3) while the United States has unilaterally reduced its
inventory of tactical nuclear weapons by nearly ninety
percent since the end of the Cold War, Russia is behind
schedule in implementing the steep tactical nuclear arms
reductions pledged by former Soviet President Gorbachev in
1991 and Russian President Yeltsin in 1992, perpetuating the
dangers from Russia's tactical nuclear stockpile; and,
(4) the President of the United States should call on the
Russian Federation to expedite reduction of its tactical
nuclear arsenal in accordance with the promises made in 1991
and 1992.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 15, 1999, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Congress a report on Russia's
non-strategic nuclear weapons, including
(1) estimates regarding the current numbers, types, yields,
viability, and locations of such warheads;
(2) an assessment of the strategic implications of the
Russian Federation's non-strategic arsenal, including the
potential use of such warheads in a strategic role or the use
of their components in strategic nuclear systems;
(3) an assessment of the extent of the current threat of
theft, sale, or unauthorized use of such warheads, including
an analysis of Russian command and control as it concerns the
use of tactical nuclear warheads; and
(4) a summary of past, current, and planned efforts to work
cooperatively with the Russian Federation to account for,
secure, and reduce Russia's stockpile of tactical nuclear
warheads and associated fissile material.
This report shall include the views of the Director of
Central Intelligence and the Commander in Chief of the United
States Strategic Command.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I share the growing concern over the
continuing high levels of tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenals of
both Russia and the United States.
We have made substantial progress in reducing the levels of strategic
nuclear weapons which threaten world peace and security. This progress
has been made through the cooperation and efforts of both our countries
and I commend the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations for their
efforts.
We have reduced the number of strategic missiles on each side. We
have inventoried and controlled dangerous nuclear materials to prevent
their theft. We have improved the safety and security of strategic
nuclear weapons world-wide.
But, during this time, we have left another dangerous threat
untouched--the tactical nuclear weapons built and deployed for
battlefield use. These dangerous weapons have received far too little
attention in our arms control efforts.
Although they are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons, tactical
nuclear weapons are still a massive threat. In the wrong hands, in a
terrorist or military attack, these weapons are almost as dangerous as
strategic weapons. The potential armed conflicts facing the world today
would be far more threatening if tactical nuclear weapons become an
option for any side. The effect on stability and our own security could
well be catastrophic.
We must take every reasonable measure to ensure that such weapons are
never used--not in any armed conflict, not in a terrorist attack,
never.
The goal of the Conrad amendment is to reduce, and eventually
eliminate, the world's stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. We must
inventory the number and types of these weapons currently held in
stockpiles, assess them, and work together to eliminate them.
It is not too much to ask that we pursue two tracks in the effort to
deal with the nuclear threat left by the legacy of the Cold War.
Reducing and eliminating both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is
the right course for the United States and Russia, and the only one
that will ensure our future security.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2947) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2948

(Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the
presentation of a United States flag to members of the Armed Forces
being released from active duty for retirement)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grams of Minnesota,
I offer an amendment that would require service secretaries to present
a U.S. flag to each retiring service member. I believe the amendment
has been cleared by the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mr.
Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 2948.

The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 634. PRESENTATION OF UNITED STATES FLAG TO MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Army.--(1) Chapter 353 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after the table of sections the
following:

``Sec. 3681. Presentation of flag upon retirement at end of
active duty service

``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Army shall present
a United States flag to a member of any component of the Army
upon the release of the member from active duty for
retirement.
``(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is
not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection
(a) if the member has previously been presented a flag under
this section or section 6141 or 8681 of this title.
``(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag
under his section shall be at no cost to the recipient.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting before the item relating to section
3684 the following:

``3681. Presentation of flag upon retirement at end of active duty
service.''.

(b) Navy and Marine Corps.--(1) Chapter 561 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the table
of sections the following:

``Sec. 6141. Presentation of flag upon retirement at end of
active duty service

``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Navy shall present
a United States flag to a member of any component of the Navy
or Marine Corps upon the release of the member from active
duty for retirement or for transfer to the Fleet Reserve or
the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
``(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is
not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection
(a) if the member has previously been presented a flag under
this section or section 3681 or 8681 of this title.
``(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag
under his section shall be at no cost to the recipient.''.

[[Page S6851]]

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting before the item relating to section
6151 the following:

``6141. Presentation of flag upon retirement at end of active duty
service.''.

(c) Air Force.--(1) Chapter 853 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the table of sections the
following:

``Sec. 8681. Presentation of flag upon retirement at end of
active duty service

``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall
present a United States flag to a member of any component of
the Air Force upon the release of the member from active duty
for retirement.
``(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is
not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection
(a) if the member has previously been presented a flag under
this section or section 3681 or 6141 of this title.
``(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag
under his section shall be at no cost to the recipient.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting before the item relating to section
8684 the following:

``8681. Presentation of flag upon retirement at end of active duty
service.''.

(d) Requirement for Advance Appropriations.--The Secretary
of a military department may present flags under authority
provided the Secretary in section 3681, 6141, or 8681 title
10, United States Code (as added by this section), only to
the extent that funds for such presentations are appropriated
for that purpose in advance.
(e) Effective Date.--Sections 3681, 6141, and 8681 of title
10, United States Code (as added by this section shall take
effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply with respect to
releases described in those sections on or after that date.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
Defense Authorization Bill. Having just celebrated Flag Day, June 14,
the symbol of our great country is vividly in mind. In close
conjunction with that symbol of freedom, is our freedom guarded by
those who serve in our Military Services who have been willing to give
their lives for our country.
It seems fitting to show our honor and respect to those who have
valiantly and fearlessly carried the banner of our flag into battle.
Each one of these battle-ready patriots should carry a memento of their
military service home with them--to remind them of our gratitude and
their great achievement in keeping the country free. My amendment would
present a U.S. flag to each active duty person who has served our
country. I know that former Senator Robert Dole has supported this
effort as well.
All components of the Military Services, the active duty, the
National Guard and the Reserves of the Army, Air Force, Navy and
Marines, who have completed honorable tours of duty will be eligible
for this gift from a grateful nation.
It seems appropriate that an American flag be presented to those
honorably discharged while they are still with us, not just to spread
over their caskets as they depart this world. This living symbol will
do much to re-invigorate and re-dedicated the whole nation to our
reason for being--freedom and liberty for all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
Mr. THURMOND. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2948) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2949

(Purpose: To require a report on options for the reduction of
infrastructure costs at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas)

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I offer
an amendment which would require a report on the options for the
reduction of infrastructure costs at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for Mrs.
Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 2949.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 222, below line 21, add the following:

SEC. 1031. REPORT ON REDUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AT
BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.

(a) Requirement.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the
Secretary of the Air Force shall, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on means of reducing significantly the
infrastructure costs at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, while
also maintaining or improving the support for Department of
Defense missions and personnel provided through Brooks Air
Force Base.
(b) Elements.--The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of any barriers (including barriers under
law and through policy) to improved infrastructure management
at Brooks Air Force Base.
(2) A description of means of reducing infrastructure
management costs at Brooks Air Force Base through cost-
sharing arrangements and more cost-effective utilization of
property.
(3) A description of any potential public partnerships or
public-private partnerships to enhance management and
operations at Brooks Air Force Base.
(4) An assessment of any potential for expanding
infrastructure management opportunities at Brooks Air Force
Base as a result of initiative considered at the Base or at
other installations.
(5) An analysis (including appropriate data) on current and
projected costs of the ownership or lease of Brooks Air Force
Base under a variety of ownership or leasing scenarios,
including the savings that would accrue to the Air Force
under such scenarios and a schedule for achieving such
savings.
(6) Any recommendations relating to reducing the
infrastructure costs at Brooks Air Force Base that the
Secretary considers appropriate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2949) was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2950

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inouye, I offer an
amendment which would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report regarding the potential for development of Ford Island, Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Inouye,
proposes an amendment numbered 2950.

The amendment is as follows:

Sec. 2833. Not later than December 1, 1988, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the President and the
Congressional Defense Committees a report regarding the
potential for development of Ford Island within the Pearl
Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii through an integrated
resourcing plan incorporating both appropriated funds and one
or more public-private ventures. This report shall consider
innovative resource development measures, including but not
limited to, an enhanced-use leasing program similar to that
of the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the sale or
other disposal of land in Hawaii under the control of the
Navy as part of an overall program for Ford Island
development. The report shall include proposed legislation
for carrying out the measures recommended therein.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared by
the other side.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2950) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

MTMC'S Reengineering Program

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today regarding an issue that
is of great concern to myself and the military families in my state. I
am referring to the Military Traffic Management Command's (MTMC)
proposed re-

[[Page S6852]]

engineering of the personal property program. The MTMC is responsible
for moving service member's household goods when they receive Permanent
Change of Station orders, and the current system for doing so has often
been criticized for not providing the same quality service that is
available in the private sector.
The current system is a $1.1 billion a year industry that is awarded
without competition and contains no provisions for the government to
enforce quality standards. The status quo has produced a dismal 23%
customer satisfaction rate, which is understandable when we consider
that one in four military moves results in a claim for missing or
broken household goods. To make the situation worse, it takes about 8
months to settle 80% of these claims with the service member, at a cost
of $100 million to the government.
For over three years, the Department of Defense has been trying to
bring elements of competition and corporate practice into the military
program. MTMC's plans will permit full and open competition from all
types of companies which provide corporate moving services, and will
hold its contractors to standards of performance. It will streamline
the personal property program, and introduce accountability to the
program through the use of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The re-
engineered program will also make full replacement insurance value
available to service families for the first time, and will guarantee
that a minimum of 41% of the total contract will be performed by small
businesses. The GAO has reviewed this proposal and found it to be
superior to the current program.
However, I am concerned that an alternative to the MTMC's re-
engineering program, referred to as the Commercial-Like Activities of
Superior Service (CLASS), has been included in the House FY99 Defense
Authorization bill. This alternative, which is opposed by the
Department of Defense, the Military Coalition, the Business Executives
for National Security and the Military Mobility Coalition, does not
improve the quality of service for our personnel, does not take
advantage of current commercial practices, does not provide our
military families with a streamlined claims process, and offers no
protection for the interests of small business. It is estimated that
the CLASS program will cost the DoD about three years and an additional
$6 million to implement. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate
will reject the CLASS program during the conference committee
negotiations, and allow the DoD to move forward with its pilot program.
I urge my colleagues to support MTMC's re-engineering effort and to
remember that this is simply a pilot program. It will take place in
three states and will encompass only 18,000 shipments out of a total of
650,000 annually, or only three percent of DoD's total annual
shipments. Congress has also charged GAO to review the pilot as it is
conducted and report back to Congress. If, at the end of this test,
there are changes to be made, we can make them at that time.
Mr. President, our military families have waited long enough for us
to improve the personal property program, and legislatively changing
all of DoD's efforts for some other idea at the last minute would be
extremely counterproductive. I look forward to removing this burden
from our service personnel, and to working with my colleagues to ensure
MTMC's re-engineering program becomes a reality.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the vote being taken on the tabling motion for Senator
Hutchison, I have 10 minutes to address a matter as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as to the earlier vote on tabling, I
initiated the tabling motion in my capacity as comanager of this bill,
together with our distinguished chairman. I felt it was the proper
thing to do because I attribute to this particular bill, the underlying
bill, the annual Authorization Act, the highest priority. It is for the
benefit of those who serve in uniform all over the world. It sends a
strong message to our allies and enables this country to maintain its
responsibility as the sole superpower in the world today. And that is
why I am going to do everything I can, together with our distinguished
chairman and others, to see that this bill does move forward.
Now that the matter has been divided, then I think I am free to vote
my conscience as it relates to such votes as may be taken hereafter
regarding the amendments.
I yield the floor.

Vote on motion to table Division I of Amendment No. 2737

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to the motion to table division I of the amendment No.
2737. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is
absent because of illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 96, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

NAYS--96

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Bennett
Domenici
Rockefeller
Specter
The motion to lay on the table division I of the amendment (No. 2737)
was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Missouri is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for an inquiry.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that under the
order, after the 10 minutes of morning business, the Senate will then
stand in recess without any intervening unanimous consent requests or
motions?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I have been asked to propound a
unanimous consent, and I believe it has been agreed to by both sides.
Prior to the Senator leaving the Chamber, I will do that.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator have that to propound now?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.

____________________