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

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6863-S6867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Hutchinson is now
in a position to have the pending China human rights issue withdrawn.
However, before the Senator is recognized, let me put the Senate on
notice as to where the bill is going, hopefully, for the next few days,
which will take some cooperation, but I believe we are going to get it.
I certainly hope so.
Following the withdrawal of the China issue and a statement by
Senator Hutchinson--and I believe he is on the floor and ready to
proceed--the Senate will resume consideration of the DOD authorization
until approximately 5 p.m. At that time, the Senate will turn to the
Coverdell A+ conference report for approximately 2 hours of debate
tonight. The Senate will resume the conference report consideration on
Wednesday at 9:30 and, therefore, the vote on final passage will occur
around 11:30 on Wednesday on the Coverdell A+ education bill.
The Senate will then resume the DOD authorization bill. It is the
hope of both leaders that the bill can move forward and be concluded by
the close of business on Wednesday. I realize that is a big order, but
we are calling on our leadership.
Mr. LEVIN. Wednesday of this week?
Mr. LOTT. Wednesday of this week, or Thursday at the latest, because
we do have a lot of other work to do.
I realize there are some, I don't know, 150 amendments pending. Who
are we kidding? That is not only not serious, that is totally
laughable. This is the Department of Defense authorization bill which
we need to do for our country. This is a bill that the Armed Services
Committee has already done the bulk of the work on. While I realize
there are a lot of policy issues, a lot of amendments that Senators
would like to offer, I hope they will cooperate and we can get this
bill completed in a reasonable period of time. This is the fifth day
that we have been on the DOD authorization bill. Tomorrow will be the
sixth day. So we need to get it concluded. I do now put the Senate on
notice that I intend to call up H.R. 2358, relative to the China human
rights issue, sometime after July 6, 1998. I will notify all Members
when the date has been finalized so all Members will have time to
prepare for it. This is an important issue for our country. Senators on
the Democratic side have said we should not debate this while the
President is going to China. I think, as a matter of fact, that the
reverse is the case--that we should make our point, express the
Senate's concern on these very important issues before the President
goes, but not necessarily while he is there. It is an issue that we
need to address further, and we are going to do that sometime after
July 6.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following a brief
statement by Senator Hutchinson, the motion to recommit be
automatically withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for the
opportunity to work with him on this issue. I believe the China
amendments I have offered have great value. The debate has been
healthy, and the debate has been necessary. I, frankly, am willing to
stand here and talk about human rights in China in general this week
and next week, or as long as it takes. My great objective is to see
these provisions become the public policy of this land.
In my opinion, the opponents of these amendments do not have a
substantive leg to stand on. The only reason they have brought up to
oppose these amendments involves the timing of the offering of these
amendments. I remind my colleagues, once again, that I offered these
and filed these amendments over a month ago. They have sought to
obfuscate the issues, obscure the motivations, and place obstacles in
the path of clean and substantive votes. The hollowness of the
administration's policy is evident in their unwillingness to embrace
these very modest human rights amendments.
Mr. President, if I might say again, the hollowness of the
administration's China policy is evident in their unwillingness to
embrace even those modest human rights amendments, and the length to
which they have gone to block them from a vote on their merits, I
think, speaks to the weakness of the policy. The policy has failed. The
lack of outrage by this administration over the news today that China
denied visa approval for Radio Free Asia reporters, I think, gives
powerful testimony to the kind of acquiescence and concessionary spirit
that characterizes this administration's policies. It is all too
typical.
These issues will not go away, I assure you. Slave labor conditions,
forced abortions, forced sterilizations, religious persecution, and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are real issues. They are
not fiction or partisan weapons; they are not used for some kind of
political brownie points or ``got-you'' points. These are real issues
that need to be debated, and we need to change our foreign policy in
relation to these abuses that are ongoing in China.
If history teaches us anything, history teaches us that appeasement
never works. The fact that this administration has refused even to
offer the annual resolution at the U.N. convention in Geneva on human
rights, I think, is indicative that even the smallest stands for human
rights have gone by the wayside. I think it was Edmund Burke who said,
``All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing.''
What the Senate has done today on China policy is nothing. The fact
that these bills passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives,
the fact that this body voted not to table them by 80-plus votes,
indicates there is strength in their appeal. I want to express my
appreciation to the majority

[[Page S6864]]

leader for the commitment he has made today to bring up H.R. 2358 in
July for a vote and that the China issue will be addressed, and
that whether it is Senator Abraham or Senator Wellstone, or others, who
have issues regarding bills regarding China, they will have an
opportunity to debate them and to offer them. I compliment and commend
the majority leader for that public commitment today. I will continue
to press for votes on these provisions. I will look for legislative
vehicles, if necessary.

These concerns that I have expressed are not, as they have been
portrayed, partisan politics. This afternoon, I attended a press
conference in which there were more Democrats than Republicans
expressing their concern about the human rights policy of this
administration toward China. This is not partisan politics. This has
nothing to do with Republicans trying to make points. I probably have
as much difference on some of them on my side of the aisle as I do on
some of them on the other side of the aisle. So people can stand and
say that we should not use foreign policy as an instrument of partisan
politics. Well, this is not. This is a bipartisan concern about human
rights abuses in China that have not improved under the policy of this
administration.
There is much more that we need to do, on a bipartisan basis, to
press the cause of basic human rights and democracy in China. It is my
sincere hope that President Clinton will take every opportunity to
elevate these issues during his trip, which he embarks on tomorrow.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to recommit is withdrawn.
The motion to recommit was withdrawn.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.

Amendment No. 2407, as modified

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe my amendment No. 2407 is now
the pending business. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2407), as modified, is as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment, insert the following:

SEC. ____. SENSE OF SENATE ON NUCLEAR TESTS IN SOUTH ASIA.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) on May 11 and 13, 1998, the Government of India
conducted a series of underground nuclear tests;
(2) on May 28 and 30, 1998, the Government of Pakistan
conducted a series of underground nuclear tests;
(3) Although not recognized or accepted as such by the
United Nations Security Council, India and Pakistan have
declared themselves nuclear weapon states;
(4) India and Pakistan have conducted extensive nuclear
weapons research over several decades, resulting in the
development of nuclear capabilities and the potential for the
attainment of nuclear arsenals and the dangerous
proliferation of nuclear weaponry;
(5) India and Pakistan have refused to enter into
internationally recognized nuclear non-proliferation
agreements, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and full-
scope safeguards agreements with the International Atomic
Energy Agency;
(6) India and Pakistan, which have been at war with each
other 3 times in the past 50 years, have urgent bilateral
conflicts, most notably over the disputed territory of
Kashmir;
(7) the testing of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan
has created grave and serious tensions on the Indian
subcontinent; and
(8) the United States response to India and Pakistan's
nuclear tests has included the imposition of wide-ranging
sanctions as called for under the Arms Export Control Act and
the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994.
(b) Sense of Senate.--The Senate--
(1) strongly condemns the decisions by the governments of
India and Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998;
(2) supports the President's decision to carry out the
provisions of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of
1994 with respect to India and Pakistan and invoke all
sanctions in that Act;
(3) calls upon members of the international community to
impose similar sanctions against India and Pakistan to those
imposed by the United States;
(4) calls for the governments of India and Pakistan to
commit not to conduct any additional nuclear tests;
(5) urges the governments of India and Pakistan to take
immediate steps, bilaterally and under the auspices of the
United Nations, to reduce tensions between them;
(6) urges India and Pakistan to engage in high-level
dialogue aimed at reducing the likelihood of armed conflict,
enacting confidence and security building measures, and
resolving areas of dispute;
(7) commends all nations to take steps which will reduce
tensions in South Asia, including appropriate measures to
prevent the transfer of technology that could further
exacerbate the arms race in South Asia, and thus avoid
further deterioration of security there;
(8) calls upon the President to seek a diplomatic solution
between the governments of India and Pakistan to promote
peace and stability in South Asia and resolve the current
impasse;
(9) encourages United States leadership in assisting the
governments of India and Pakistan to resolve their 50-year
conflict over the disputed territory in Kashmir;
(10) urges India and Pakistan to take immediate, binding,
and verifiable steps to roll back their nuclear programs and
come into compliance with internationally accepted norms
regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
and
(11) urges the United States to reevaluate its bilateral
relationship with India and Pakistan, in light of the new
regional security realities in South Asia, with the goal of
preventing further nuclear and ballistic missile
proliferation, diffusing long-standing regional rivalries
between India and Pakistan, and securing commitments from
them which, if carried out, could result in a calibrated
lifting of United States sanctions imposed under the Arms
Export Control Act and the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention
Act of 1994.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have a short period of time to be
able to discuss this, because at 5 o'clock we go to the Coverdell
amendment. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield. I think there
is some discussion going on now that would enable 10 or 12 minutes on
this very important amendment. I would like to take 2 minutes to join
with my colleagues who are opposed to it. I would like to speak to it a
little bit.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, have the yeas and nays been
ordered on this issue?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
Mr. LOTT. On the Brownback amendment, the yeas and nays have not been
ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LOTT. I understand there is a possibility we can go ahead and
complete action on the Brownback issue after a statement by the Senator
from Kansas and Senator Warner, and perhaps Senator Levin would have
something to say. If we can get that completed in a reasonable period
of time, we can complete that and then go over to the Coverdell
education issue.
Do we have any agreement on the time?
Mr. LEVIN. I don't know the length. I want to make inquiry on the
yeas and nays issue. Is it not correct that the yeas and nays were
ordered on the Feinstein first-degree amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. So the question is, if there is a need for the yeas and
nays, we would leave it. If there is no need for a rollcall vote on
that, we would need to vitiate, as I understand it, the yeas and nays
on the first-degree Feinstein amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I urge the leadership of the committee to
pursue this issue and, hopefully, get to a conclusion, and then we
would go to the Coverdell education conference report immediately after
that.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is there a need for the yeas and nays on
the first-degree Feinstein amendment? I ask whether the leader would
have any objection, if there is no need for it, to vitiating the yeas
and nays on the underlying Feinstein first-degree amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in response to the comment of the
Senator from Michigan, there is no need for the yeas and nays.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me inquire again about the time so we
can get a time agreement. Do we have some indication of how much time
is needed? The Senator from Kansas needs how much?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I think we can do all of this in 15 minutes, with all
parties being able to speak. That would be

[[Page S6865]]

my sense. I think I can get my comments done in about 7 minutes or so.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it sounds to me like 20 minutes, equally
divided, should be sufficient.
I ask unanimous consent that the time be limited to 20 minutes,
equally divided, on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I have an inquiry of the Chair. Then there are no yeas and
nays requested on either the first- or second-degree amendments at this
time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not yet been vitiated.
Mr. LEVIN. Would the leader have objection to vitiating the yeas and
nays on the Feinstein amendment at this time?
Mr. LOTT. No.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could inquire briefly of the
Senator from Virginia who asked to speak on this amendment how much
time he might desire on this?
Mr. WARNER. Three minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 7 minutes of
the 10 minutes allotted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, last month, following India's nuclear
tests, I offered legislation to repeal section 620(e) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (otherwise known as the Pressler amendment). The
Pressler amendment concerns restriction on the provision of military
assistance and other transfers to Pakistan. When Pakistan blundered
into responding to India's nuclear tests with tests of its own, this
amendment not only became pointless symbolically, but because of
existing sanctions law it was no longer relevant.

How rapidly events change. Last month when I proposed to repeal
Pressler, the world was reacting in stunned disbelief to India's
nuclear tests. At the time it seemed our only hope in stalling an all
out nuclear arms race in South Asia was to offer Pakistan some security
assurances, while at the same time urging them in the strongest terms
not to be drawn into this dangerous display of nuclear saber rattling.
Unfortunately, Pakistan did test, and we are now imposing sanctions
rather than lifting them.
The month of May 1998 will be remembered as a time of nuclear
anxiety. Tensions were high as the world watched India and Pakistan
play nuclear roulette. June has brought some respite; India and
Pakistan have declared a moratorium on further nuclear testing, and
they are discussing bilateral talks this month. I pray that this
nuclear nightmare will pass.
The question of South Asia's regional security and our future
relations with India and Pakistan remain issues of abiding concern.
What has happened in South Asia is in many ways an indictment of the
administration's failed foreign and nonproliferation policies. Consider
that, at this very moment Congress is investigating the administration
for its export control policies, particularly as they relate to China.
These policies have made possible the wholesale proliferation of
missile and nuclear technology, not only to Pakistan, but to others,
such as Iran.
Mr. President, the testing of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan,
and the resulting security crisis in South Asia should be of grave
concern to all of us. We must continue to condemn India and Pakistan's
nuclear tests, and urge them to enact confidence and security building
measures to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict. We must encourage
a more involved role by the United States in seeking a diplomatic
solution, and in providing leadership to resolve the conflict over the
disputed territory in Jumma Kashmir. We should urge India and Pakistan
to roll back their nuclear programs, and to come into compliance with
the NPT. In addition the United States should develop policies which
will promote stable, democratic, and economically thriving economies in
India and Pakistan.
Last week the administration implemented sanctions against India and
Pakistan. Although the scope of these sanctions is limited--ending
economic aids, loans, and military sales--they will cast a negative
pall on our relations until they are lifted. We should not
underestimate the symbolic and economic impact of these sanctions. In
India, America-bashing has taken the form of boycotting American
products and vandalizing establishments selling them. There are reports
that foreign capital is fleeing India and Pakistan, and financial
markets there have already been badly hurt.

It is premature today to talk about lifting these sanctions, but I
don't believe it is too early to begin planning for their gradual
removal. For that reason I am considering legislation which could
provide for the conditional removal of sanctions against India and
Pakistan, based upon progress as outlined in the Geneva Communique.
I think the communiques issued after the P-5 meeting in Geneva, and
the G-8 meeting in London are reasonable appeals to India and Pakistan
by the nuclear powers. Eighty other nations have joined the P-5 and the
G-8 in denouncing these nuclear tests and calling for action by India
and Pakistan. But, these appeals will not be met by India and Pakistan
simply because they were announced in official communiques.
The Geneva communique said that confidence building measures,
incentives, disincentives, and other actions are steps the
international community can take in its relations with India and
Pakistan. There are a number of actions we in Congress can take to move
this process forward. Here are just a few.
We can listen to the concerns put forward by the Indian and Pakistani
people. This week I will be leading a delegation to India and Pakistan
to hold meetings with their leaders. My goal in visiting India and
Pakistan is to hear, first hand, the views and concerns of their
leadership. I also want to give assurances that this issue is very much
on the front burner for the U.S. Congress. As I said in a hearing two
weeks ago, it would be folly to isolate India and Pakistan at this
time. We must be engaged. Unfortunately, in recent years U.S. foreign
policy in India and Pakistan has been one of estrangement, not
engagement.
We can work closely with the administration. This week I plan to
invite the State Department Special Coordinator for India and Pakistan
and interested members to a round table to explore how we might
constructively engage India and Pakistan. I look forward to the results
of those meetings.
In all of this--our meetings, our travel to the region, and our
discussions with allies--our goal is to halt the proliferation of
nuclear weapons in South Asia, restore regional security, and put our
bilateral relationships with India and Pakistan back on track. We
should settle for no less.
Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will ask for the passage of
these bills. I do not believe that we will need a rollcall vote.
Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator has 4
minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to retain the remainder of
that.

Privilege of the Floor

I ask unanimous consent that Terry Williams, a fellow in my office,
be permitted privilege of the floor today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, although the Senator didn't say this,
I am a cosponsor.
I want to speak briefly about it. I don't believe in the last decade
that there has been a more disturbing fact and change of events on the
subcontinent of Asia than the detonation of these nuclear tests. They
have taken two countries, and indicated to the world that each has a
lethal capacity which is far in excess of the bomb that exploded at
Hiroshima.
This morning I detailed the unclassified analyses of what each of
these countries has in the type of nuclear weapons, the type of
launching devices, the type of plane, and the potential damage in terms
of loss of life of humans that could occur. And it is quite mind-
boggling.

[[Page S6866]]

This resolution essentially calls upon all freedom-loving countries,
all members of the international community, to support the United
States in its sanctions against both India and Pakistan. It calls for
the Governments of India and Pakistan to commit to no further
additional nuclear test, and it urges them to take immediate steps
bilaterally, and under the auspices of the United Nations, to reduce
tensions between them.
This morning I indicated how easy these tensions could increase. I
mentioned the bomb on a train. I mentioned 25 people killed at a Hindu
wedding, a product of Moslem terrorists. Any one of these events could
bring about a miscalculation and produce a nuclear holocaust.
We also in this resolution urge India and Pakistan to take immediate
binding and verifiable steps to roll back their nuclear programs and
come into compliance with internationally accepted norms regarding
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And we urge our country
to reevaluate our bilateral relationship with India and Pakistan in
light of the new regional security realities in south Asia with the
goal of preventing further nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation,
diffusing longstanding regional rivalry between India and Pakistan, and
securing commitments from them, which, if carried out, could result in
a calibrated lifting of U.S. sanctions imposed under the Arms Export
Control Act and the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994.
Mr. President, I believe that this resolution has been cleared on all
sides. I would certainly urge its passage by voice vote.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I likewise ask to be made a cosponsor of
this amendment. I think it is a very responsible effort by our
distinguished colleagues, the principal sponsors, and I think the
Senate will endorse this, as it will in a voice vote momentarily.
But I would just bring to the attention of colleagues, if we do not
handle responsibly this crisis--we, the United States--together with
our principal allies, it will signal to other nations that they should
begin to look towards the development of weapons of mass destruction.
In all likelihood, they cannot afford the expense associated with
nuclear weapons, but it will propel them into further areas of chemical
and biological.
So that, to me, is the seriousness of this problem, if we do not
handle it fairly, evenhandedly, and with a note of understanding. And
that brings me to my question, because section (b)(3) urges other
nations to impose sanctions. I just wondered, listening very carefully
to the Senator from Kansas, who said he is going to travel over there
to try to work out greater confidence-building measures and also to try
to increase engagement, am I misreading that section as being possibly
in conflict with what I hear my two distinguished colleagues as saying?
Mr. BROWNBACK. If I may respond to the Senator from Virginia, it was
our intent that the United States has put on a set of sanctions via the
Glenn amendment that were automatic, and we thought it important to
state that if we are going to take that position, we should be urging
other nations to do so as well. Yet, in the longer term, as we get
further out here, I think we should be dealing in a dialog of, how do
we get these lifted on a step-by-step, confidence-building measure?
At the present time, we are in a unilateral sanctions position, and I
think we should urge other nations to join us in that statement, but at
the same time I want us to start building the confidence and moving
away from those if we can't get other nations to join us in this
effort.
Mr. WARNER. I would certainly urge that be done because, in reality,
we are not here to say who is at fault; both bear a heavy sense of
culpability. Unfortunately, India initiated it. I don't know--as time
goes on, perhaps there will be an answer--what recourse Pakistan had.
Had not the current leadership taken that action, they might well have
been either run out of office or forced out of office. So we cannot be
unmindful of the political instabilities in these nations and the
reality that if one did it, what recourse the other had other than to
do it.
Now, two wrongs do not make a right, but I will listen carefully, and
I hope that this section does not send a signal of any rigidity as we
should be pursuing greater engagement.
I hope the international community would offer to arbitrate the
complexity of the Kashmir problem. It has been there for a long time,
and very often, an outside, unbiased, objective collection of nations
could come in and render some helpful assistance to alleviate that
problem, which is an absolute crisis. Talk about human rights and
suffering. There is a war taking place every day--shelling, killing--
and it must be brought to a stop.

So I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my two colleagues
from Kansas and California. I congratulate them. I think it is a very
important measure for the Senate to adopt. But I do hope that you will,
on your mission, and others will do what we can to increase engagement
and provide for solutions.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the comments and wisdom of the Senator
from Virginia. We are attempting further engagement.
I also want to recognize my colleague from California, Senator
Feinstein, who has been a leader in this overall effort, as well as
Senator Harkin and Senator Robb. The whole Senate, hopefully, will be
engaged in this matter.
Mr. President, if no one else seeks to speak--I guess perhaps there
is somebody else. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I will not use it all. I just want to congratulate the
Senators from California and Kansas for their energy, for their
persistence, their efforts. It is a very significant statement for the
Senate and, I believe, for the world. The concern that is reflected in
this resolution--this amendment now--is very significant in terms of
what our fears and concerns are. These tests have not brought security
to India and Pakistan; they have brought insecurity to the region. They
have made the world a lot less secure place. And now we must both state
that and seek to try to put this genie back in the bottle to the extent
that those tests have helped to release it.
The modifications are important modifications to make sure this is an
evenhanded resolution, which it is, following the tests by the two
countries. And our staffs have worked very closely with your two
staffs. We wish to thank you again for your efforts in pursuing this,
and we hope that this resolution is promptly and totally adopted by
this Senate.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with the
pending amendment.
I deeply regret the circumstances regarding India's decision to
detonate nuclear devices. But the increased instability in South Asia
has been caused by China's proliferation policies, a U.S. foreign
policy which favors China over India, and the licensing of technologies
by the United States which enhances China's military capabilities.
So I wonder why we would consider strongly condemning the Indian
government--the democratically elected Indian government--for taking
legal actions in its perceived self interest. And I further question
this amendment occurring on a day in which the Senate could not vote to
express our concerns with the reprehensible actions taken by the
communist party officials running the People's Republic of China.
Mr. President, India has broken no international laws or agreements
by choosing to test nuclear devices, and India is not a known
proliferator of weapons or weapons technology. We know, however, that
China is a proliferator. Of particular concern is Chinese proliferation
of weapons and technologies to Pakistan. But today the Senate will vote
to condemn India and fail to vote to condemn China.
India and China went to war in 1962. To this day, China continues to
occupy 15,000 square miles of Indian territory

[[Page S6867]]

in Ladakh and it claims sovereignty over the entire 35,000 square miles
of India's Northeastern most province. The pending amendment rightly
points out that India has not joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. But the amendment fails to recognize that the NPT seeks to
ensure the current five nuclear powers alone are able to possess
nuclear weapons. This means that China can maintain its arsenal, but
India cannot. India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
for similar reasons.
Mr. President, there appears to be a serious contradiction
represented in our foreign policy which makes no sense to me. It is for
this reason that I cannot support this amendment and will vote against
it. I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2407), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment.
The amendment (No. 2405), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I just say one final thing. I
appreciate the committee working with us, the ranking member and
chairman of the committee; I thank them very much.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I did not hear whether there was a motion
to reconsider. If not, I move to reconsider that vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. As I understand, we are due back on this bill at 12
o'clock tomorrow. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has not yet been ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. The defense authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not yet been ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Do we anticipate being back at 12 o'clock tomorrow?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the answer to the question.
Mr. THURMOND. I would like for Members who have any amendments to
offer to come down and offer these amendments. We have got to push this
bill. This is a vital bill. It concerns every citizen in this country.
This defense bill is very, very important, and we do not want to be
delayed in carrying it on and on. Let's act promptly and show the world
that we stand for a strong defense.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me join the chairman of the committee
in urging our colleagues to bring amendments to the floor tomorrow, as
we anticipate, when we return to this bill at around noon. We now have
removed a major roadblock to considering other amendments, so the floor
will be open at that time for other amendments to be considered, and we
hope our colleagues will bring those to the floor.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________