[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.

                          ____________________