[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9329-S9343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Fienga 
from my staff be allowed on the floor during the debate on the defense 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3397

 (Purpose: To achieve the near full funding of the Army National Guard 
 operation and maintenance account that the Senate provided for in the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999 (H. Con. Res. 
    28), as agreed to by the Senate, and to offset that increase by 
reducing the amount provided for procurement for the F/A-18E/F aircraft 
program to the amount provided by the House of Representatives in H.R. 
            4103, as passed by the House of Representatives)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S9330]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3397.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 13, line 9, increase the amount by $219,700,000.
       On page 25, line 25, reduce the amount by $219,700,000.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment would allow the National 
Guard to almost fully fund its operation and maintenance, or O&M 
account, for the coming fiscal year. This year's Defense Department 
budget request left the National Guard with a $634 million budget 
shortfall, including a $450 million shortfall in the Guard's O&M 
account. This request fell on the heals of a $743 million shortfall for 
the current fiscal year. I think these shortfalls are wrongheaded and 
unacceptable.
  Fortunately, both Houses of Congress have acted more responsibly in 
funding the National Guard. Even with the improvements from both 
Houses, though, the Senate appropriations bill we are currently 
considering leaves the Guard's operation and maintenance account $225 
million short. The House bill leaves an even greater gap of $317 
million. My amendment would add $220 million to the National Guard's 
O&M account, leaving just a $5 million shortfall to that account.
  According to the National Guard, shortfalls in the operation and 
maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness levels, 
capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to fully 
support these vital areas will have a direct as well as indirect 
effect. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training, 
full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps most 
importantly, however, I know firsthand that it is eroding the morale of 
our citizen-soldiers, as I have had the opportunity to visit some of 
the armories in Wisconsin and have heard this concern firsthand.
  With that in mind, 26 State adjutants general--a majority of the 
adjutants general in this country--have contacted my office to voice 
their support for this amendment. The leaders of the National Guard 
units in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, and my 
own home State of Wisconsin support my amendment. I would like to thank 
them for their dedication and support, and I hope we decide to heed 
their call for support of the National Guard.
  Mr. President, in spite of the National Guard's budget concerns, the 
administration continues to deliver insufficient budget requests given 
the National Guard's duties; yet, the administration increasingly calls 
on the Guard to handle some very wide-ranging tasks. These shortfalls 
have an increasingly greater effect given the National Guard's 
increased operations burden. This is as a result of new missions, 
increased deployments, and training requirements, including the 
missions in Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia.
  As I am sure my colleagues know by now, the Army National Guard 
represents a full 34 percent of total Army forces, including 55 percent 
of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25 
percent of combat service support; yet, the Guard only receives 9.5 
percent of Army funds.
  To offer a comparison with the other Army components, the National 
Guard receives just 71 percent of requested funding, as opposed to the 
Active Army's 80 percent and Army Reserve's 81 percent. I think it is 
time we move toward giving the National Guard adequate and equal 
funding. This amendment almost achieves funding equity for the National 
Guard, and the National Guard is the Nation's only constitutionally 
mandated defense force.
  Not only have we failed to invest fully in the National Guard, we 
have failed to invest fully in the best bargain in the Defense 
Department. That should not come as a surprise, however. DOD has never 
been known as a frugal or practical department--from $436 hammers to 
$640 toilet seats to $2 billion bombers that don't work and the 
Department doesn't seem to want to use. The Department of Defense has a 
storied history of wasting our tax dollars. Here is an opportunity to 
spend defense dollars on something that actually works, that is 
worthwhile, and enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle.
  In this regard, the National Guard fits the bill. According to a 
National Guard study, the average cost to train and equip an active 
duty soldier is $73,000 per year, while it costs only $17,000 per year 
to train and equip a National Guard soldier. The cost of maintaining 
Army National Guard units is just 23 percent of the cost of maintaining 
active Army units. It is time for the Pentagon to quit complaining 
about lack of funding and begin using their money a little more wisely 
and efficiently.
  Finally, my amendment doesn't terminate any program, nor does it 
create unsupported cuts to existing programs. This amendment merely 
follows the recommendation of the other Chamber.
  Early this year, the House overwhelmingly supported DOD authorization 
and appropriations bills that provide $2.6 billion to procure 27 Super 
Hornet aircraft. I think, and the General Accounting Office thinks, 
that is actually far too much money for a plane that provides only 
marginal benefits over the current, reliable Hornet. But it is better 
than the $2.8 billion for 30 Super Hornets that the bill contains. I 
think we should follow the prudent lead of our colleagues in the other 
body on this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the House 
National Security Committee's report on its fiscal year 1999 DOD 
authorization bill, which specifically addresses the Super Hornet, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               F/A-18E/F

       The budget request contained $2,787.8 million for 30 F/A-
     18E/F aircraft and $109.4 million for advanced procurement of 
     36 aircraft in fiscal year 2000.
       Based on the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review 
     (QDR), the committee notes that the Department has reduced 
     the total procurement objective from 1,000 to 548 aircraft 
     and has also reduced procurement in the future years defense 
     program (FYDP) from 248 to 224. The committee notes that the 
     Department plans to request increases of six aircraft per 
     year for each of the next three fiscal years until its 
     maximum production rate of 48 aircraft per year is attained 
     in fiscal year 2002. However, for fiscal year 1999, the 
     requested increase from fiscal year 1998 is 10 aircraft.
       The committee is also aware that the Department has 
     increased the number of low rate initial production (LRIP) 
     aircraft in fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 from 42, as 
     approved in 1992 by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), to 
     its current plan of 62 aircraft. The Department's Selected 
     Acquisition Reports indicate that both its initial plan of 42 
     LRIP aircraft and its current plan of 62 LRIP aircraft were 
     predicated on a procurement objective of 1,000 aircraft. The 
     committee notes that were the Department to comply with the 
     10 percent LRIP guideline contained in section 2400 of title 
     10, United States Code, 55 LRIP aircraft should be 
     sufficient.
       During the past year, the committee has followed the 
     Department's challenges in solving an uncommanded rolling 
     motion problem that occurs at altitudes and angles of attack 
     in that portion of the flight envelop where the F/A-18E/F 
     performs air combat maneuvers. The Department's Director of 
     Operational Test and Evaluation recently testified that the 
     most promising solution to this problem--a porous wing 
     fairing--causes unacceptable airframe buffeting and that the 
     final solution to the problem may include other combinations 
     of aerodynamic alternations to the wing surface. According to 
     the Director, the root cause of the problem and modifications 
     to the porous wing fairing are still being investigated, and 
     the wing fairing configuration flown during developmental 
     testing does not incorporate the production representative 
     wing fold mechanism. Additionally, the Director stated that 
     the Department would not have a complete understanding of the 
     impact of the design fix, including uncertainty over air flow 
     effects around the weapons pylons, until the conclusion of 
     operational testing in 1999. Moreover, the Director also 
     noted other concerns with the aircraft such as deficiencies 
     in the performance of its survivability and radar jamming 
     systems.
       In light of the significantly higher increase in production 
     proposed for fiscal year 1999, the apparent excess number of 
     LRIP aircraft,

[[Page S9331]]

     and the development and testing issues yet to be fully 
     resolved, the committee recommends a reduction of $213.1 
     million and three aircraft. Of the total $213.1 million 
     reduction, initial spares is reduced by $8.4 million. The 
     committee believes that an increase of seven aircraft from 
     the approved fiscal year 1998 level is appropriate and 
     further believes that a total of 59 LRIP aircraft, 
     approximately 11 percent of the total procurement objective, 
     will meet requirements for operational testing and evaluation 
     and will also be sufficient to meet both initial training 
     requirements and the first operational deployment scheduled 
     for fiscal year 2002.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to quote the chairman of 
the House Military Procurement Subcommittee, Duncan Hunter. Speaking of 
the National Security Committee's Super Hornet procurement decision, 
Representative Hunter said, ``We think it's a rational, responsible 
reduction, a balanced reduction.''
  Mr. President, it is time we prioritized this Nation's defense needs. 
The National Guard provides a wide range of services, from combat in 
foreign lands to support in local weather emergencies, all at a 
fraction of the cost of the Active Army. The National Guard needs and 
deserves our full support. And it is for that reason that 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to move to table this amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from 
Wisconsin for presenting this amendment. I would have to speak against 
that.
  It is true that the budget request submitted by the administration 
for the National Guard had a shortfall for O&M activities in the Guard 
in the amount of about $770 million. On our chairman's initiative, we 
placed an amount of $320 million to make up for part of the shortfall.
  In addition to that, the administration had zero dollars for 
procurement of new equipment based upon the philosophy that if the 
regular services, the Regular Army, purchases equipment, some of the 
leftovers may go for the Guard. We did not concur with that. We 
appropriated $500 million for the Guard to get new equipment.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I believe it should be noted that 
every service, every component of every service, is faced with 
shortfalls. There is a shortfall in Navy O&M. They would like to have 
more steaming time. They want their ships to be out there for 
maneuvers. We can't do that. The Army Tank Corps would like to have 
more petroleum and gasoline so that the men who drive these tanks may 
get more experience and be ready for combat, if such is necessary. 
Artillerymen would like to have more ammunition for firing range 
practice.
  Mr. President, we have the sad chore of trying to balance all of the 
accounts and, at the same time, realizing that if this Nation is to 
continue being the superpower of this world and thereby deter any 
nation from any mischievous action, we have to provide funds to 
modernize. The accounts that may be affected by this amendment would 
stop the modernization program.
  Mr. President, although I agree that the Guard should be receiving 
much more, I will have to concur with my chairman's action when he 
moves to table this.
  Thank you.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have had a series of visits with the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. I particularly recall the discussion I had with 
Secretary of the Navy John Dalton and with Admiral Johnson. There is no 
question that the Navy representatives have informed our committee that 
full F/A-18E/F funding is the administration's top appropriations 
priority for defense and the Navy.
  This amendment would take these funds from that priority, the F/A-
18E/F, and move it to the National Guard.
  We have added, as I stated this morning, $95 million to augment the 
Guard and Reserve personnel accounts.
  We have added for the Guard and Reserve operation and maintenance 
funds an additional $225 million.
  Finally, we added $450 million to the Guard and Reserve procurement 
account.
  I have to tell the Senator we have exceeded the requests in many 
instances. We added almost $1 billion in the zero sum budget for the 
Guard and Reserve priorities.
  Furthermore, the F/A/-18E/F is just entering production. The 
Senator's amendment will seriously disrupt the production program, and 
substantially increase the unit cost, if the Senate approves this 
amendment. To me it does not make common sense to increase the cost of 
the F-18, the Navy's top priority planes which we must buy to meet the 
Navy's previously approved program requirements. We have helped the 
Guard and Reserve. I do not think we should punish the Navy in order to 
help them any more.
  If the Senator wishes to make any comments, I yield to him for those 
comments.
  I intend to make a motion to table his amendment. But before I do 
that, I ask unanimous consent that, on any votes that are laid aside in 
order to join the priority list that is already in existence under the 
Guard and Reserve the common procedure of a minute on each side be the 
procedure for this bill: That there be 2 minutes equally divided on any 
vote that occurs on this bill on an amendment that is set aside for a 
later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first of all say that the two 
Senators who have spoken in opposition to this amendment are not only 
very sincere in their support of the National Guard but they have 
demonstrated in committee a serious concern about increasing funding. 
And their efforts have gone a long way to make sure that we have less 
of a shortfall than was originally occurring. That is encouraging. 
However, as was admitted by those opposed to this amendment, we still 
have a $225 million shortfall in the O&M account at the National Guard. 
This is a serious shortfall.
  I am not suggesting that we remove this funding from vital areas, but 
this is about priorities within the defense budget. I think it is a 
pretty easy call. Although I would prefer that we not move forward with 
the Super Hornet airplane, what I am suggesting here is not a dramatic 
reduction in those planes. I am simply suggesting we take what has 
already been passed in the House; that is, instead of having 30 of the 
Super Hornets, we procure 27--3 fewer. For three fewer of these planes, 
we could fully fund the National Guard O&M account.
  This is not an attempt, as the Senator from Alaska, suggested, to 
seriously disrupt the production of the Super Hornet. Very candidly, 
Mr. President, I would prefer to do that, because the General 
Accounting Office has pointed out that the Super Hornet is not 
substantially better than the current plane. It is going to cost $17 
billion more than the current plane. That is a huge amount of money.
  But that is not what this amendment does. All this amendment does is 
say let's adopt what the House did, which is have 27 Super Hornets 
instead of 30, and use the money that is saved to fully fund the 
National Guard, or virtually fully fund the National Guard O&M account.
  Mr. President, these shortfalls for the National Guard are serious. I 
have had the opportunity to visit armories in Oak Creek, WI, and 
Appleton, WI, and spend a fair amount of time speaking to the officers 
and the guardsmen and guardswomen who are trying so hard to do the job 
that they are expected to do, constituting 34 percent of our entire 
Army's sources and resources. They are having morale problems. 
Otherwise, why would 26 adjutant generals in this country write in 
support of this amendment? They are very concerned.
  Mr. President, my amendment is simply about priorities. It is a 
modest reduction in the number of these Super Hornets that are going to 
be procured, and in return for something that is far more vital at this 
point. And that is fully funding the O&M account for the National 
Guard.

  Mr. President, in light of the fact there will be a motion to table 
at some

[[Page S9332]]

point, I strongly urge my colleagues to put these modest resources in 
the National Guard, which supports our Army and which exists in our 
communities in every one of our States, rather than three more 
airplanes that, frankly, have not been proven to be substantially 
better than the current plane that has done a good job in the Gulf war 
and other situations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on this 
matter, I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now ask that that amendment be set aside.
  Is the standing order that all of the votes we ask for the yeas and 
nays on prior to 2 o'clock will be automatically set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3398

   (Purpose: To limit the use of funds pending establishment of the 
 position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Technology Security 
                                Policy)

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if it is in order, I would like to send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. KYL. And ask for its immediate consideration.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3398.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be obligated or expended for the establishment or 
     operation of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency until the 
     Secretary of Defense takes the following actions:
       (1) Establishes within the Office of the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Policy the position of Deputy Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Technology Security Policy and designates that 
     official to serve as the Director of the Defense Security 
     Technology Agency with only the following duties:
       (A) To develop for the Department of Defense policies and 
     positions regarding the appropriate export control policies 
     and procedures that are necessary to protect the national 
     security interests of the United States.
       (B) To supervise activities of the Department of Defense 
     relating to export controls.
       (C) As the Director of the Defense Security Technology 
     Agency--
       (i) to administer the technology security program of the 
     Department of Defense;
       (ii) to review, under that program, international transfers 
     of defense-related technology, goods, services, and munitions 
     in order to determine whether such transfers are consistent 
     with United States foreign policy and national security 
     interests and to ensure that such international transfers 
     comply with Department of Defense technology security 
     policies;
       (iii) to ensure (using automation and other computerized 
     techniques to the maximum extent practicable) that the 
     Department of Defense role in the processing of export 
     license applications is carried out as expeditiously as is 
     practicable consistent with the national security interests 
     of the United States; and
       (iv) to actively support intelligence and enforcement 
     activities of the Federal Government to restrain the flow of 
     defense-related technology, goods, services, and munitions to 
     potential adversaries.
       (2) Submits to Congress a written certification that--
       (A) the Defense Security Technology Agency is to remain a 
     Defense Agency independent of all other Defense Agencies of 
     the Department of Defense and the military departments; and
       (B) no funds are to be obligated or expended for 
     integrating the Defense Security Technology Agency into 
     another Defense Agency.
       (b) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Technology 
     Security Policy may report directly to the Secretary of 
     Defense on the matters that are within the duties of the 
     Deputy Under Secretary.
       (c) Not later than 10 days after the Secretary of Defense 
     establishes the position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Technology Security Policy, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committees on Armed Services and on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on National Security and on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the establishment of the position. The report shall include 
     the following:
       (1) A description of any organizational changes that have 
     been made or are to be made within the Department of Defense 
     to satisfy the conditions set forth in subsection (a) and 
     otherwise to implement this section.
       (2) A description of the role of the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff in the export control activities of the 
     Department of Defense after the establishment of the 
     position, together with a discussion of how that role 
     compares to the Chairman's role in those activities before 
     the establishment of the position.
       (d) Unless specifically authorized and appropriated for 
     such purpose, funds may not be obligated to relocate any 
     office or personnel of the Defense Technology Security 
     Administration to any location that is more than five miles 
     from the Pentagon Reservation (as defined in section 2674(f) 
     of title 10, United States Code).

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask of the distinguished chairman 
whether this would be an appropriate time to discuss briefly the 
amendment or whether we should lay it aside and move to other business? 
What would be the chairman's pleasure?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I just delivered a copy of the Senator's 
amendment to the minority and other committees affected. He is at 
liberty to make such comments he wishes to make, but we will not be 
able to have final consideration of the matter until we have heard back 
from Senator Inouye and his people on his side of the aisle. The 
Governmental Affairs Committee is also considering this issue.
  Mr. KYL. What I might do then, Mr. President, since we want to handle 
this in a way agreeable to the chairman, if there is no one else to 
present an amendment right now, rather than defer business, I will go 
ahead and describe the amendment but do it briefly and then, when the 
chairman is ready to proceed with other business, lay it aside and 
handle it in that fashion, if that is agreeable with the chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. Fine.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in that event, let me first ask unanimous 
consent that two fellows from my office, John Rood and David Stephens, 
be granted floor privileges for the debate on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will describe this amendment briefly.
  Frankly, this came out of the revelations concerning the alleged 
transfer of certain technology to the Chinese Government as a part of 
the process of launching American satellites on Chinese rockets, the 
so-called Loral-Hughes matter. But it really goes beyond that. It is a 
question of whether or not the Defense Department has in process an 
adequate way of reviewing the requests for export licensure and the 
conditions attached to those licenses to ensure that national security 
is not jeopardized.
  That role has in the past been played by an agency of the Defense 
Department called the Defense Technology Security Agency. It goes by 
the name of DTSA for the people who understand it. The point of this 
memorandum is to ensure that DTSA will continue to have a prominent 
role in the evaluation of export licenses and the kinds of conditions 
that would be attached to them.
  In fact, we ensure as a result of this amendment that the role is 
prominent by restoring the position of the Deputy Under Secretary for 
Technology Security Policy within the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, and thereby ensure, as I say, a prominent role for 
this agency. The Deputy Under Secretary would have access to both the 
Under Secretary of Policy and the Secretary of Defense himself.
  This is important, Mr. President, for the following reasons:
  No. 1, DTSA is the single agency in the Government reviewing the 
national security implications of an item for export;
  No. 2, DTSA coordinates input from the services, military branches, 
the Joint Chiefs and the defense agencies;

[[Page S9333]]

  No. 3, DTSA routinely supports the Department of State in its 
investigations of these matters;
  No. 4, creating a Deputy Secretary of Technology Security will ensure 
that the Department of Defense is represented at a sufficiently high 
level at the interagency meetings that occur to discuss these export 
licenses.
  And, finally, providing the Deputy Under Secretary with the authority 
to interact directly with the Secretary of Defense will enable the 
Deputy Secretary to bring items of immediate concern directly to the 
Secretary to discuss with the Secretary of Commerce and the President.
  The Department of Defense is the only agency with the expertise, the 
personnel, and the ability to assess the impact of exports on the 
national security of the United States, and this ought to be our No. 1 
concern. The Persian Gulf war demonstrated the value of the United 
States maintaining a technical edge on the battlefield. Maintaining 
that edge in the future is dependent upon keeping sensitive 
technologies out of the hands of potential adversaries.
  Questions regarding the appropriate role of the Department of Defense 
in considering exports of dual-use items have obviously been of concern 
for a number of years. But, as I said, the alleged transfer technology 
to the Chinese Government has really elevated this concern to the point 
that there are those of us in Congress who want to ensure that the 
Department of Defense continues to have an important role here.
  Early in the 1990s, Congress examined the problems with export 
control and how it was possible that American companies, with the 
knowledge of the Department of Commerce, could have contributed to the 
Iraqi arms buildup, as we know occurred. We learned, for example, that 
between 1985 and the imposition of the U.N. embargo on Iraq in August 
of 1990, the Department of Commerce approved for sale to Iraq 771 
export licenses for dual-use goods. Some of these sales involved 
technologies that very probably helped the Iraqis develop ballistic 
missile, nuclear, and chemical weapons. In some cases, Commerce 
approved the sale over strong objections from Defense or without even 
consulting the Department of Defense at all.
  In 1994, the Export Administration Act expired and in 1996 dissolved, 
leaving no overarching legal forum to guide the export control policies 
of the United States. Export controls were at that point directed by 
Executive order. And this resulted in relaxed control over national-
security-related equipment and technologies. The GAO has documented 
potential problems with changes that occurred in 1996 and with the 
Department of Commerce retaining the primary responsibility for 
oversight of important national security equipment or technology.
  Let me just give a couple of examples here. On September 14, 1994, 
the Department of Commerce approved an export of machine tools to 
China. The tools had been used in a plant in Ohio that produced 
aircraft and missiles for the U.S. military. Some of the more 
sophisticated machine tools were diverted to a Chinese facility engaged 
in military production, possibly cruise missile production.
  Under current referral practices, the majority of applications for 
the export of categories related to stealth are not sent to the 
Department of Defense or the Department of State for review. Without 
such referrals, it cannot be ensured that export licenses for 
militarily significant stealth technology are properly reviewed and 
controlled.
  A third example: Commercial jet engine hot section technology was 
transferred to the Department of Commerce in 1996. Defense officials 
are concerned about the diffusion of technology and the availability of 
hot section components that could negatively affect the combat 
advantage of our aircraft and pose a threat to U.S. national security 
concerns. So the Defense Department must have an active role and a 
strong position in advising the President about the national security 
implications of exporting these and other important dual-use 
technologies. In order to do this, the Secretary of Defense must have 
the best advice available. This amendment will ensure that Secretary 
Cohen and all subsequent Secretaries have that advice.

  Mr. President, at the appropriate time I hope we can engage in 
further discussion of this to ensure that the national security of the 
United States is not impaired.
  At this time, unless there is anyone else who would like to discuss 
it, I am happy to have the chairman or the ranking member move to other 
business.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask this amendment be set aside for 
later consideration so we may have consultation with other committees 
and Members involved in this subject. We did not have this on our list 
and have not distributed it until just now. I ask unanimous consent it 
be put aside until other Members have a chance to review it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3397

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had a brief debate. The manager of 
the bill, the chairman of the committee, has moved to table the 
Feingold amendment. I want to add my comments to the debate on that 
issue.
  This is an amendment which I strongly oppose and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to oppose it. This is part of a continuing 
campaign of harassment against the Navy's No. 1 program, the No. 1 
program of the U.S. Navy. This campaign has had a long, and to date 
totally unsuccessful, history. We all know the problems in the court 
systems when individuals flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits. We, 
in providing procurement funds for the Navy, have had a string of what 
I consider to be less than good-faith, responsible amendments directed 
at this program.
  The amendment before us purports to cut funds from a Navy procurement 
program and earmark them for the National Guard operations and 
maintenance fund. As a long-time and strong supporter of the National 
Guard, I recognize the limited funding the Guard has, and I have worked 
with my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense 
Appropriations Committee, and the Senator from Kentucky, my cochairman 
of the National Guard caucus, to fund adequately the Guard component of 
the total force. But I do not believe that pitting one service against 
the other, raiding the Navy's No. 1 procurement program, is the way to 
fill that funding requirement. No, this amendment is not a step forward 
for good government. It has been proposed for no other reason than as a 
reckless assault on a program which has successfully cleared every 
production hurdle with room to spare.
  I have been advised by Major General Edward Philbin, Executive 
Director of the National Guard Association of the U.S., that NGAUS is 
not supporting this program because, among other things, it would 
simply create problems between the National Guard and the Navy. This, 
to me, is a very unfortunate step when, as pointed out by the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, all services are facing shortfalls. 
We have to address the inadequacy in funding for the National Guard and 
all of the other services. But I can tell you that this amendment is 
totally uncalled for.
  The F/A-18E/F is the Navy's No. 1 priority procurement program. If 
you ask the Secretary of the Navy or any of the fleet carrier strike-
fighter aviators what will enable the Navy to be viable in the 21st 
century and beyond, they will tell you it is the Super Hornet. 
Yesterday the CNO was in my office with one of the fine young men who 
fly the F/A-18. They reemphasize this is their No. 1 program. They 
cannot afford to take cuts in the program such as proposed on the House 
side, or particularly as proposed in this amendment. I think it is a 
sad day when some Members, for reasons known to themselves, would wish 
to pit the National Guard against the Navy. I think it is irresponsible 
and could lead to services raiding each other's accounts to achieve an 
individual Senator's political goals.
  In January of 1997, the Senator from Wisconsin led an effort to 
terminate

[[Page S9334]]

the F/A-18E/F. He failed. Since then, he has continued what appears to 
be a vendetta against the program, and now his intent is slowly to 
drain the money from the aircraft by continuing a plan to reduce the 
number of aircraft and the funding available, to make a full-rate 
production decision nearly impossible.
  When you talk with the people in the Navy who know what their needs 
are, who know what the future of naval aviation is, they will insist, 
and they will tell you that this is the airplane that they must have. 
If we want our men and women in naval aviation to carry out the 
missions we demand of them, then we have to provide them the modern, 
up-to-date, efficient aircraft, technologically superior, that the E/F 
F-18 gives us.
  I remember full well several years ago when the distinguished ranking 
member of this committee, the Senator from Hawaii, said, ``We don't 
ever want to send American fighting men and women into a battle evenly 
matched. We want to send them in with the technological superiority, 
the training, and the capability and resources to make sure they win.''
  Mr. President, that is what the 18E/F gives us. It gives us that 
technological superiority. It gives us the ability to make sure we have 
the best chance possible of bringing our naval aviators home safely, 
having accomplished their mission.
  The F/A-18E/F has already been scrutinized in the Quadrennial Defense 
Review. It has been scrutinized by the National Defense Panel. It has 
undergone GAO study after GAO study. It has been tested by pilots at 
the Patuxent River Naval Air Station and the Naval Air Weapons Station, 
China Lake. It has accumulated 2,749 test flight hours, over 1,800 
flights, and numerous aircraft carrier landings. It has never had a 
catastrophic failure. I wish other tactical air programs could meet 
these standards. It has test fired just about every weapon the Navy 
might need it to carry. It is on time, it is on budget, and it needs to 
get underway.
  I ask my colleagues, if they have any question about the value of 
this plane, ask somebody who flies one. Ask somebody who has had the 
opportunity to fly it. Ask somebody who we are sending in harm's way, 
asking them to fly a fighter and attack aircraft off a carrier, ask 
them how important they think the F/A-18E/F is to their ability to 
carry out their mission and to come home safely. If you will ask the 
naval aviators, whose lives are on the line, I have no question what 
their response is going to be. I have heard it myself. Any of my 
colleagues who wish to contact somebody they know in naval aviation or 
in the Navy itself, I believe they will tell you it is the No. 1 
priority.
  Mr. President, this is simply a bad amendment, and I sincerely hope 
that my colleagues will vote overwhelmingly with the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member to table this unwise amendment. I 
thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
states that my amendment is a ``reckless assault'' on the Navy's Super 
Hornet program. This could not be further from the truth.
  My amendment to increase funding for the National Guard is simply 
that; an amendment to correct most of a dangerous shortfall in funding 
for the National Guard's operations and maintenance account. To raise 
as little controversy as possible in finding an offset to the funding 
increase, I chose a provision already agreed to by the other chamber. 
Not only did the House agree to funding procurement of 27 Super Hornets 
in FY99, the body authorized funding for the identical amount.
  In speaking to the reduction, Chairman of the House Military 
Procurement subcommittee, Duncan Hunter said, ``We think it's a 
rational, responsible reduction, a balanced reduction.'' Does this mean 
Chairman Hunter is recklessly assaulting the Super Hornet program? Is 
Chairman Hunter diminishing the value of the Navy's aviation fleet? Is 
Chairman Hunter questioning the value of the Super Hornet? I don't 
think Chairman Hunter was, or ever will be, accused of any of those 
things. That's why, Mr. President, it boggles my mind why I now stand 
accused of all those things. It's a plain mischaracterization of my 
amendment.
  This amendment is not about gutting the Super Hornet program. This 
amendment is not about pitting one service against another. This 
amendment is not about diminishing the Navy's aviation fleet. This 
amendment does not question the value of the Super Hornet.
  Mr. President, this amendment is about an adequate level of funding 
for the National Guard and priorities in our armed forces. This 
amendment is about giving priority to the National Guard's readiness 
levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. This amendment 
is about bringing the Guard's personnel, schools, training, full-time 
support, and retention and recruitment to adequate levels. This 
amendment, is about ending a slide in the morale of our citizen-
soldiers.
  Finally, my friend from Missouri states that the National Guard 
Association of the United States does not support this amendment. I'm 
sure he made his case very forcefully to them. I counter by saying that 
the association does not oppose this amendment either. In fact, a 
majority of State Adjutants General, 26 of them so far, have contacted 
my office to add their names in support for my amendment. I hope my 
colleagues will draw their own conclusions from that figure. Indeed, I 
urge my colleagues to contact their State Adjutant General and ask them 
for their opinion of my amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the National Guard, as I do. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against tabling my amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3124

 (Purpose: Relating to human rights in the People's Republic of China)

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3124 which I 
filed previously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3124.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

                                TITLE IX

                         HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA

                 Subtitle A--Forced Abortions in China

       Sec. 9001. This subtitle may be cited as the ``Forced 
     Abortion Condemnation Act''.
       Sec. 9002. Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Forced abortion was rightly denounced as a crime 
     against humanity by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
       (2) For over 15 years there have been frequent and credible 
     reports of forced abortion and forced sterilization in 
     connection with the population control policies of the 
     People's Republic of China. These reports indicate the 
     following:
       (A) Although it is the stated position of the politburo of 
     the Chinese Communist Party that forced abortion and forced 
     sterilization have no role in the population control program, 
     in fact the Communist Chinese Government encourages both 
     forced abortion and forced sterilization through a 
     combination of strictly enforced birth quotas and immunity 
     for local population control officials who engage in 
     coercion. Officials acknowledge that there have been 
     instances of forced abortions and sterilization, and no 
     evidence has been made available to suggest that the 
     perpetrators have been punished.
       (B) People's Republic of China population control 
     officials, in cooperation with employers and works unit 
     officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles and 
     subject women who conceive without government authorization 
     to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic 
     sanctions, including unpayable fines and loss of employment, 
     and often to physical force.
       (C) Official sanctions for giving birth to unauthorized 
     children include fines in amounts several times larger than 
     the per capita annual incomes of residents of the People's 
     Republic of China. In Fujian, for example, the average fine 
     is estimated to be twice a family's gross annual income. 
     Families which cannot pay the fine may be subject to 
     confiscation and destruction of their homes and personal 
     property.
       (D) Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on 
     those whose resistance is motivated by religion. For example, 
     according to a 1995 Amnesty International report, the 
     Catholic inhabitants of 2 villages in Hebei Province were 
     subjected to population control under the slogan ``better to 
     have more graves than one more child''. Enforcement measures 
     included torture, sexual abuse, and the detention of 
     resisters' relatives as hostages.
       (E) Forced abortions in Communist China often have taken 
     place in the very late stages of pregnancy.

[[Page S9335]]

       (F) Since 1994 forced abortion and sterilization have been 
     used in Communist China not only to regulate the number of 
     children, but also to eliminate those who are regarded as 
     defective in accordance with the official eugenic policy 
     known as the ``Natal and Health Care Law''.
       Sec. 9003. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of State may not utilize any funds appropriated 
     or otherwise available for the Department of State for fiscal 
     year 1999 to issue any visa to any national of the People's 
     Republic of China, including any official of the Communist 
     Party or the Government of the People's Republic of China and 
     its regional, local, and village authorities (except the head 
     of state, the head of government, and cabinet level 
     ministers) who the Secretary finds, based on credible 
     information, has been involved in the establishment or 
     enforcement of population control policies resulting in a 
     woman being forced to undergo an abortion against her free 
     choice, or resulting in a man or woman being forced to 
     undergo sterilization against his or her free choice.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Attorney General may not utilize any funds appropriated or 
     otherwise available for the Department of Justice for fiscal 
     year 1999 to admit to the United States any national covered 
     by subsection (a).
       (c) The President may waive the prohibition in subsection 
     (a) or (b) with respect to a national of the People's 
     Republic of China if the President--
       (1) determines that it is in the national interest of the 
     United States to do so; and
       (2) provides written notification to Congress containing a 
     justification for the waiver.

                Subtitle B--Freedom on Religion in China

       Sec. 9011. (a) It is the sense of Congress that the 
     President should make freedom of religion one of the major 
     objectives of United States foreign policy with respect to 
     China.
       (b) As part of this policy, the Department of State should 
     raise in every relevant bilateral and multilateral forum the 
     issue of individuals imprisoned, detained, confined, or 
     otherwise harassed by the Chinese Government on religious 
     grounds.
       (c) In its communications with the Chinese Government, the 
     Department of State should provide specific names of 
     individuals of concern and request a complete and timely 
     response from the Chinese Government regarding the 
     individuals' whereabouts and condition, the charges against 
     them, and sentence imposed.
       (d) The goal of these official communications should be the 
     expeditious release of all religious prisoners in China and 
     Tibet and the end of the Chinese Government's policy and 
     practice of harassing and repressing religious believers.
       Sec. 9012. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     no funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of State for fiscal year 1999 for the United 
     States Information Agency or the United States Agency for 
     International Development may be used for the purpose of 
     providing travel expenses and per diem for the participation 
     in conferences, exchanges, programs, and activities of the 
     following nationals of the People's Republic of China:
       (1) The head or political secretary of any of the following 
     Chinese Government-created or approved organizations:
       (A) The Chinese Buddhist Association.
       (B) The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.
       (C) The National Congress of Catholic Representatives.
       (D) The Chinese Catholic Bishops' Conference.
       (E) The Chinese Protestant ``Three Self'' Patriotic 
     Movement.
       (F) The China Christian Council.
       (G) The Chinese Taoist Association.
       (H) The Chinese Islamic Association.
       (2) Any military or civilian official or employee of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China who carried out 
     or directed the carrying out of any of the following policies 
     or practices:
       (A) Formulating, drafting, or implementing repressive 
     religious policies.
       (B) Imprisoning, detaining, or harassing individuals on 
     religious grounds.
       (C) Promoting or participating in policies or practices 
     which hinder religious activities or the free expression of 
     religious beliefs.
       (b)(1) Each Federal agency subject to the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) shall certify in writing to the appropriate 
     congressional committees, on a quarterly basis during fiscal 
     year 1999, that it did not pay, either directly or through a 
     contractor or grantee, for travel expenses or per diem of any 
     national of the People's Republic of China described in 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Each certification under paragraph (1) shall be 
     supported by the following information:
       (A) The name of each employee of any agency of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China whose travel 
     expenses or per diem were paid by funds of the reporting 
     agency of the United States Government.
       (B) The procedures employed by the reporting agency of the 
     United States Government to ascertain whether each individual 
     under subparagraph (A) did or did not participate in 
     activities described in subsection (a)(2).
       (C) The reporting agency's basis for concluding that each 
     individual under subparagraph (A) did not participate in such 
     activities.
       Sec. 9013. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of State may not utilize any funds appropriated 
     or otherwise available for the Department of State for fiscal 
     year 1999 to issue a visa to any national of the People's 
     Republic of China described in section 9012(a)(2) (except the 
     head of state, the head of government, and cabinet level 
     ministers).
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Attorney General may not utilize any funds appropriated or 
     otherwise available for the Department of Justice for fiscal 
     year 1999 to admit to the United States any national covered 
     by subsection (a).
       (c) The President may waive the prohibition in subsection 
     (a) or (b) with respect to an individual described in such 
     subsection if the President--
       (1) determines that it is vital to the national interest to 
     do so; and
       (2) provides written notification to the appropriate 
     congressional committees containing a justification for the 
     waiver.
       Sec. 9014. In this subtitle, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I turn, I believe, to an issue of 
great, great importance to this body and to the Nation. In defending 
his policy before he left for China, President Clinton said:

       We do not ignore the value of symbols, but in the end, if 
     the choice is between making a symbolic point and making a 
     real difference, I choose to make a difference.

  I say to my colleagues, today we have a chance to make a difference. 
The President went on and said:

       When it comes to advancing human rights and religious 
     freedom, dealing directly, speaking honestly with the Chinese 
     is clearly the best way to make a difference.

  While in China, President Clinton was allowed to make some tempered 
remarks on human rights abuses in China, though, unfortunately, he was 
quick to equate them with problems in America. He came back from China 
hailing his trip as a success and praising President Jiang and saying--
I quote again-- ``feeling the breeze of freedom.''
  Only a week after President Clinton's return from China, China 
demonstrated the impact of this rhetoric on their attitude and their 
policies by arresting 10 democracy advocates. There their crime was not 
rape. It was not theft. It was not burglary. It was not grand larceny. 
It was not fraud. Their crime was that they dared to start a democratic 
opposition party.
  The Washington Post reported--it is obvious in the headline--on 
Sunday, July 12, on the front page, ``Chinese Resume Arrests, 10 
Detained a Week after Clinton Visit.''
  Fortunately, five of these activists were subsequently released. But 
when the supporters of democracy protested these arrests in an open 
letter to the Communist Government, it was no surprise the Chinese 
Government kindly responded by arresting yet another dissident, Xu 
Wenli.
  According to the Associated Press, on July 24, 1998, the Chinese 
Government detained four more dissidents, bringing the known number of 
detained dissidents since the President returned from China to 21. 
Twenty-one dissidents have been detained since July 10, and three 
remain in custody at this moment.
  On July 29, the Associated Press reported that the Chinese Government 
detained the democracy activist Wang Youcai for the second time this 
month. I will simply say, this is not the ``breeze of freedom,'' but it 
is rather the draft of repression.
  Some would like to argue that President Clinton's televised comments 
in China were a historic breakthrough in emboldening democracy 
activists throughout China. Unfortunately, the President's remarks were 
broadcast in the middle of the day when few Chinese were watching 
television. His remarks were not repeated on the evening news and were 
completely omitted from the next day's state-controlled newspapers. I 
remind my colleagues also that Chinese activists already had their 
momentum, and that momentum was of their own creation from the 1989 
demonstrations at Tiananmen Square.
  We see that President Clinton spoke directly to the Chinese people, 
at least some of them. We see the symbolic point that he made, but what 
we do not see is that there was any difference made in the policy of 
the Chinese Government. In fact, their response was one of impudence, 
one of, if you will, a reinforcement of their policy of repression, and 
I believe the arrests that the Washington Post and all the major

[[Page S9336]]

media in our country spoke of within a week of the President's return 
is testimony to the failure of our policy of appeasement.
  As this chart is on the floor of the Senate with that headline, 
``Chinese Resume Arrests,'' it stands as, I think, irrefutable evidence 
that the current policies failed to bring about the desired changes, 
the changes that we all desire in China.
  They resumed arrests. A policy of appeasement has never worked, and 
it is not working today. Today, we, as a body, have the opportunity to 
move beyond rhetoric into real action with the amendment that I have 
offered.
  The amendment is composed of two parts: one dealing with forced 
abortions and one dealing with religious persecution in China. This 
will have brought most of the House-passed measures last year--the 
Chinese freedom policy measures sponsored by my good friend and 
colleague, Chris Cox--this will have brought most of those now to a 
vote in the Senate. I am glad to say that my friend, Spence Abraham, 
the Senator from Michigan, intends to offer the human rights monitors 
amendment later on this bill.
  I am also glad that an amendment that I had filed dealing with 
satellite technology transfers and moving the authority for that waiver 
process back to the State Department and away from the Commerce 
Department is, as I speak, being worked out in the State Department 
authorization conference committee, and I trust and hope that it will 
be in that conference report when it is presented to the Senate later.
  I want to provide my colleagues with some background on this 
amendment. As many of my colleagues will recall, in November of last 
year, a number of China-related bills were overwhelmingly passed by the 
House of Representatives. This is that package of bills sponsored by 
Congressman Cox, a ``policy for freedom,'' it was called. Since that 
time, most of these measures have languished in Senate committees 
without hearings, without movement and without consideration.
  On the defense authorization bill, we adopted several of these House 
provisions that I offered at that time. However, the remainder of those 
were not passed because my efforts to offer them were thwarted by those 
who did not desire to have that debate on these China provisions before 
or during the President's trip to China. I simply say the President has 
returned. This is our opportunity now.
  My amendment, which I am glad to say is bipartisan and that Senator 
Wellstone from Minnesota, who is on the floor--and I welcome his 
remarks in support of this--is cosponsoring this amendment, mirrors the 
language that passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives 
last November.
  The provision on forced abortions--by the way, the Nuremberg Tribunal 
on War Crimes condemned forced abortions, rightfully, as being a crime 
against humanity. This is not a pro-life, pro-choice issue. Pro-
choicers overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives voted for this 
provision because this is, in fact, a crime against humanity.

  To compel and to force--to use coercion--take a woman in the seventh, 
eighth, ninth month of pregnancy and compel her, against her wishes, to 
have an abortion, that is a crime against humanity. That is why that 
provision in the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 415-1--
415-1.
  The second provision, the ``free the clergy'' portion, of the 
amendment passed the House of Representatives last November by a vote 
of 366-54.
  Now, what does the amendment do? It condemns religious persecution 
and forced abortion in China. The amendment would prohibit the use of 
American funds, appropriated to the Department of State, the USIA or 
AID, to pay for the travel of Communist officials involved in 
repressing worship or religious persecution.
  So where there is credible evidence that these officials are engaged 
in these horrendous practices, they would be denied visa approval, they 
would be denied travel expenses, per diem by the American Government, 
by the American taxpayer. It would deny visas to officials engaged in 
religious persecution and forced abortion.
  The amendment would force the Department of State to raise, in every 
bilateral and multilateral forum, the issues of individuals in prison, 
detained, confined, or otherwise harassed by the Chinese Government on 
religious grounds. It simply means that we are going to require our 
diplomats, when engaging in bilateral and multilateral discussions, to 
raise these important issues of religious persecution and forced 
abortions so that that discussion and our concern--the concern of the 
American people--is reflected by our diplomatic corps.
  This amendment would make freedom of religion one of the major 
objectives of the United States foreign policy with respect to China.
  And lastly, concerning religious persecution, this amendment would 
demand that Chinese Government officials provide the United States 
State Department with the specific names of individuals, the 
individuals' whereabouts, the condition of those individuals, the 
charges against them, and the sentence that it imposed against them.
  So individuals who have been arrested and incarcerated because of 
their faith, because of their religious practice, we would demand that 
the Chinese Government provide information about the condition, the 
whereabouts of those individuals and how long the sentence was. The 
same would be applied to those engaged in forced abortions.
  Mr. President, since the founding of the People's Republic of China 
almost 50 years ago, the Government has savaged and persecuted 
religious believers and subjected religious groups in China to 
comprehensive control by the state and the Chinese Communist Party.
  The head of the state's Religious Affairs Bureau said in 1996--and I 
quote the head of the Religious Affairs Bureau in China--``Our aim is 
not registration for its own sake, but control.'' Let me say that 
again. He said, ``Our aim is not just registration, but control over 
places for religious activities as well as over all religious 
activities themselves.''
  When people say there is religious freedom in China, that they only 
require registration, please realize, the purpose of that registration 
is to control religious activities in China, an effort that they have 
been quite successful at. So religious organizations today in China are 
required to promote socialism and ``patriotism'' while the massive 
state party propaganda apparatus vigorously attempts to promote atheism 
and combat what they call ``superstition.''
  Mr. President, the Chinese Government, the Communist Party, have in 
recent years intensified efforts to expel religious believers from the 
Government, the military, and the party, ordering a nationwide purge of 
believers in January of 1995.
  I am very concerned about the mounting campaign of religious 
persecution being waged by the rulers of China. I believe this 
amendment is the least that we can do. Many of my colleagues have said 
that using trade policy is the wrong instrument in dealing with the 
repressive practices of the Chinese Government. I understand. In fact, 
I am sympathetic to that argument.
  I never thought that most-favored-nation status was the best tool 
that we had, and yet when we come with a proposal like this, one that I 
have visited with Senator Wellstone about, and many of my colleagues 
about, when we come with one that denies visas and denies travel and 
per diem for those involved in these terrible practices, then I hear 
people saying that is the wrong tool to use, we should not use visas. 
This is the very least that we can do. If we are not willing to deal 
with the $60 billion trade deficit that we give China--trade imbalance 
that we have with that country--then the least we can do is come back 
on this issue of visas, travel expenses, and raising the issue in our 
diplomacy and diplomatic efforts with the Chinese Government and make 
this something more than mere rhetoric.
  I believe that these amendments are modest, that they are temperate, 
that they are well thought out. They have been repeatedly debated, not 
only in the House of Representatives but on the floor of the Senate as 
well.
  I will ask my colleagues to support the amendments and to oppose any 
effort to table these amendments. I believe that there is clear 
evidence not only of religious persecution among Evangelical believers, 
among Roman

[[Page S9337]]

Catholic believers, but most obviously among Buddhist believers and the 
followers of the Dalai Lama. The repression ranges from ransacking 
homes in Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to the 
closing and destroying of over 18,000 Buddhist shrines last spring. So 
the repression is real. And religious faith of all persuasions is in 
revival in China, but it is in revival in the face of intense 
persecution by the Chinese Government.
  I will only briefly speak of the practice of forced abortions that 
are going on in China today. I believe that this is a practice that is 
indefensible by any civilized human being. In their effort and attempt 
to reach a 1 percent annual population growth, the Chinese authorities, 
in 1979, issued regulations that provided monetary bonuses and other 
benefits, as incentives, and economic penalties for those who would 
have in excess of one child.
  They subject families in China to rigorous pressure to end 
pregnancies and to undergo sterilizations. And while the Communist 
Chinese Government today says that coercion is not an approved policy, 
they admit that it goes on. They have not provided our State Department 
any evidence that they are punishing the perpetrators of that terrible 
practice of coerced abortions and forced sterilizations in China today.
  Even more tragic is their effort to eliminate those they regard as 
``defective.'' China's eugenics policy, the so-called natal and health 
care law, requires couples at risk of transmitting disabling congenital 
defects to their children to undergo sterilization.
  So the practices continue in China; the abuses continue in China. 
This amendment is the very least that we can do in clear conscience. I 
have faith that my colleagues are going to support this amendment. I 
think it is something that is so essential that we do. This practice of 
coerced abortions--and, may I add, the practice of persecuting 
believers, religious believers --is morally reprehensible and 
indefensible.
  It is clear, as well, that the desired changes that the policy of so-
called constructive engagement has sought has failed.
  I once again point to this headline in the Washington Post, which 
was, in various forms, the front page story all across this country 
this month: ``Chinese Resume Arrests''--that in the wake of our 
President's visit to China.
  So please look at the temperate tone of these amendments. Realize 
that the substance is simply denying visas, travel expenses, if you 
will, American-taxpayer-subsidized travel, in recognition of those who 
the State Department, the Secretary of State, has credible evidence 
indicating that they are involved in these inhumane practices.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when we vote this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I am very 
proud to join with my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, in 
offering this amendment. Let me say, second of all, that while we do 
not agree on all issues--that may be the understatement of the year--we 
do have a common bond in our very strongly held views and, I think, 
passion when it comes to human freedom in our country and other 
countries and respect for human rights.
  At the beginning, I would like to just start out by doing two other 
things before speaking right to the amendment.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Linn Schulte-Sasse, who 
is an intern with our office, be allowed to be on the floor during the 
debate on this appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think my colleague from Arkansas will agree with me, 
it would be important, given this topic, given this debate, given this 
discussion, to mention Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma, a woman who just 
wanted to go to a meeting. That repressive junta Government would not 
let her do so. She spent 5 days in her car, refusing to leave, before 
she could go to this meeting. She never could get to the meeting. Now 
she is back safely at home. It reminds us, again, of the repression of 
this regime.
  I hope that these junta leaders understand that all of us in the 
Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, abhor their actions. From my 
point of view, we can't do enough as a country to isolate that 
repressive Government.
  The core value that brings my colleague from Arkansas and the Senator 
from Minnesota together here today is freedom in human rights. I think 
that there is no better way to speak to this than to examine our 
relationship with the Government and 1.2 billion people in China.
  I am concerned that the administration's ``carrots only'' policy has 
not worked well enough when it comes to accomplishing this goal of 
promoting freedom in human rights. I believe that the limited steps 
that the Chinese Government has taken to lessen political persecution 
or religious persecution has been when there has been American 
pressure. These included the prospect of a human rights resolution on 
China at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and the debate 
over annual MFN renewal. All of this has been important in 
communicating a strong statement to this Government that they are under 
our watchful eye, and that we speak out against persecution against 
people because of the practice of their religion or of their basic 
political viewpoint.
  I had reservations, I have reservations about the June summit between 
the President and President Jiang Zemin. I had hoped that there would 
be concrete results. I always believed it would have been better if the 
President had laid out clear human rights preconditions before visiting 
China. Having said that, I was still very hopeful that this visit would 
make a difference. I applauded the President speaking out while in 
China. But always the question was, what next? Will China now take 
realistic but meaningful steps, such as opening up Tibet to human 
rights monitors and foreign journalists? Will China release political 
prisoners? Will they put safeguards in place for the right of free 
association of workers, beginning a process of abolishing the arbitrary 
system of reduction through labor? Will they lift their official 
blacklist of prodemocracy activists now abroad who can't return to 
China?
  I fear that what we have seen so far by way of agreements announced 
in Beijing are merely symbolic in nature. On Tuesday, Secretary 
Albright reported that Chinese dissidents are continuing to be rounded 
up. For example, last Wednesday the police arrested Zhang Shanguang, a 
prominent dissident, who had already spent 7 years in jail. What did he 
do? What was his crime? He tried to organize laid off workers. Also 
last week, a Chinese court sentenced another dissident to 3 years in 
prison for helping a fellow activist to escape from China.
  Mr. President, I am all for having good relations with the 
Government. I am all for making sure that we have economic cooperation. 
I understand the market that is there. But I join with my colleague, 
Senator Hutchinson, in introducing this amendment, to say that whatever 
we do by way of our relations with China, we ought not to sacrifice a 
basic principle that we hold dear as a country, which is a respect for 
human rights and for human freedom of peoples.
  This amendment started out to do three things. One will be taken care 
of in an amendment by my colleague, Senator Abraham, which will 
increase the number of U.N. diplomats at the Bejing Embassy assigned to 
monitor human rights and add at least one human rights monitor to each 
U.S. consulate in this vast country. That is an important amendment. I 
hope my colleagues will support it.
  The second point I want to make is that our amendment is divided into 
two parts. First, our amendment will demonstrate our commitment to 
religious freedom by banning travel to the United States by any Chinese 
official who has engaged in religious persecution. While membership in 
religious groups is increasing explosively in China, the Government 
continues to prosecute, continues to persecute, Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan 
Buddhists and Christians.
  While harsh prison sentences and violence against religious activists 
still occur, state control increasingly takes the form of a 
registration process. This

[[Page S9338]]

is the way the Government monitors the membership in religious 
organizations.
  According to the State Department's reports, Chinese officials have 
conducted a special campaign against all unauthorized religious 
activities by Christians. This included police detaining people, 
beating, and fining members of the underground Catholic Church in 
Jiangxi Province, and raiding the homes of bishops. That is what is 
happening in this country.
  The Government has also carried out a major purge of local officials 
in certain heavily Muslim populated areas, and targeted again 
``underground'' Muslim activities. The Government has banned the 
construction or renovation of 130 mosques, and arrested scores of 
Muslim dissidents.
  In Tibet, human rights conditions remain grim, and have gotten worse 
this past year. Tibetan religious activists face ``disappearance,'' or 
incommunicado detention, long prison sentences, and brutal treatment in 
custody.
  Finally, this amendment, second part, demonstrates the abhorrence of 
the United States over the practice of forced abortion and 
sterilization. It targets officials involved in forcing Chinese women 
to undergo abortions and sterilization and bans their travel to the 
United States of America. Chinese population control officials, working 
with employers and work unit officials, routinely monitor women's 
menstrual cycles. They subject women who conceive without Government 
authorization to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic 
sanctions, including unpayable fines--in one province, twice a family's 
gross annual income--to loss of employment, and in some cases to the 
use of physical force.
  Some people argue that we cannot influence China, that the country is 
too large, too proud, and that change takes too long. I disagree. 
Religious prosecution, religious persecution, forced sterilization, 
forced abortion, people trying to speak out on behalf of their own 
human rights, all of these citizens have thanked us for speaking out; 
all of the human rights advocates have thanked us for helping to keep 
them alive by focusing attention on their plight and for fighting for 
reforms.
  We cannot give up. We must continue to pressure China on these urgent 
matters. I urge my colleagues to vote for this very reasonable 
amendment, and I think Senator Hutchinson sends a very compelling and 
very powerful message, not only to the Government that we will not in 
any way, shape, or form stand by idly and be silent about this kind of 
repression, but also to the people in China, the citizens, that we 
support their efforts on behalf of human rights, on behalf of their 
right to be able to practice their own religion, on behalf of their 
right to be free from forced abortion and forced sterilization.

  Colleagues, please give this amendment your overwhelming support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I realize that standing and speaking in 
opposition would be condemned by some of my colleagues and my 
constituents. I also realize that my chairman will rise to table this 
amendment at the appropriate time. But I believe that something has to 
be said as to why some of us oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, we are blessed to be able to live in a great country. 
We just celebrated the 222nd anniversary of our birth. We have had a 
very illustrious and a glorious history. Yet, there are many chapters 
in our history that we would prefer not to discuss; we would prefer to 
just pass them over. The countries that we are speaking up against in 
Southeast Asia and Asia do not have a 222-year history. Yes, they may 
have been in existence for 4,000 or 5,000 years, but keep in mind that 
most of these countries have been under the yoke of some European power 
until just recently. Indonesia, until the end of World War II, was 
under the control, and therefore a colony of, Holland. China has been 
controlled by various countries. The Japanese have been there; the 
British have been there; the French, the Russians--and Americans. North 
Korea had been under the control of the Japanese up until World War II. 
The Philippines was our colony until the end of the war.
  Our country is blessed with resources--all of the minerals that we 
need, all of the chemicals we need to make us the No. 1 high-tech 
country in the world, the most powerful military country in the world. 
These other countries are still struggling. I don't think we can expect 
these nations who are going through the evolutionary stage of just 50 
years, as compared to our 222 years--we cannot impose and demand that 
our will be carried out.
  We should remind ourselves that we, the people of the United States, 
and the Supreme Court of the United States have said that slavery was 
constitutional. That wasn't too long ago. And there are many fellow 
Americans who are still showing the effects of slavery to this day. 
Well, we pride ourselves on human rights, but hardly a day goes by when 
we don't see statistics that may not be the happiest. For example, I am 
vice chairman now of the Indian Affairs Committee. The things we are 
confronted with on a daily basis in this committee are sickening. For 
example, the unemployment rate in the Nation is less than 5 percent. 
The unemployment rate in Indian reservations today is over 50 percent. 
In some reservations, it is as high as 92 percent. Yes, there are 
reservations that are doing well--doing very, very well. But most of 
the 550 tribes are not doing well.
  When you look at health statistics, they are worse than Third World 
countries. They are worse in cancer, worse in respiratory diseases, 
worse in diabetes. And this happens in these United States. And if some 
other country should condemn us for this, we would stand up as one and 
say: It is none of your damn business.
  Well, Mr. President, the question before us is, Do we contain and do 
we isolate China--a nation with a population of over one-fourth of the 
world's population? They have problems, as much as we have problems. 
The question is, Do we ignore them, realizing that they may someday 
acquire all the technology that they need to become a terrible world 
power? Or do we try to engage them and, hopefully, by practice and by 
model, convince them that our system is the best?
  We seem to have done pretty well in doing this with the Soviet Union. 
We are told that the cold war is over now, that the power the Soviet 
Union had once upon a time is no more. Why? Because we had a policy of 
engagement. We continue to talk to them. We continue to exchange views. 
Yes, we propagandize them and they propagandize us. But because of our 
attitude, because of our resources, we have prevailed. I think the same 
can happen elsewhere.
  Yes, we are dealing with countries that have a short contemporary 
history--Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. These were European colonies. If one 
looks at the history of these colonies, the treatment was just as bad 
as the colonies in Africa. And now to suddenly say, ``Now that you have 
freedom, we expect you to behave like Americans,'' I think is asking 
too much, Mr. President.
  We speak of human rights. We will conclude this year the final 
payment of redress to Japanese Americans who were put in camps. Mr. 
President, I certainly recall that soon after December 7--on February 
19, 1942--an Executive order was issued declaring that Japanese 
Americans were not to be trusted. Therefore, they had to be rounded up, 
with 48 hours' notice, and placed in 10 camps throughout the United 
States--no due process. No crimes were committed. Studies were made, 
investigations done, and there was not a single case of sabotage, not a 
single case of un-American activity. In fact, men volunteered from 
these camps to form a regiment, which I was honored to serve in, and we 
became the most decorated Army unit in the history of the Army. The 
United States is finally going to close that chapter.
  But these things have happened to us. As a personal matter, I 
resented that when, on March 17, 1942, my Government said I was to be 
declared 4C.
  In case people are not aware of what 4C is about, 1A is the Draft 
Board's declaration that you are physically fit, mentally alert. 
Therefore, you are qualified to put on the uniform of the United 
States; 4F, something is wrong with you, physically or mentally; 4C is 
a special designation for enemy alien. That was my designation.
  So when one speaks of the history of the United States, there are 
chapters

[[Page S9339]]

that we don't wish to look at, because, if we start looking back to 
these chapters, you will find that we have gone through this painful 
evolution.
  So I am telling my colleagues that this is not a simple amendment. It 
is an amendment that requires deep thought on our part. I hope that we 
leave it up to those who we rely upon in our State Department to do the 
best. We can always watch what is going on. Yes, they have forced 
abortion. I am against that. I am against religious persecution. We try 
to convince ourselves that there is no religious persecution in the 
United States. But I am certain we know that there is.
  Mr. President, I will be voting to table this amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is with some reluctance that I 
respond to the comments, because I have such utmost respect for the 
Senator from Hawaii and his distinguished career, and all that he 
represents.
  But I just want to clarify the perspective of the authors of this 
amendment. The issue is not imposing American values. Frankly, we don't 
and we can't impose anything on another nation. But what we can say is 
that the values are important.
  I think it is terribly wrong to try to make a moral equivalency 
argument and say that examples of religious persecution that may exist 
in the United States can in any stretch of the imagination be compared 
to the wholesale religious oppression that exists in China today.
  We simply don't have headlines in the Washington Post saying that 
there were ``10 detained in Arkansas'' because of their religious 
beliefs. We don't have that in this country, and we shouldn't. If we 
did there would be an outrage, and if we did we should be condemned by 
other nations in the world.
  So the issue is not imposing American values. The issue is whether or 
not we as a body and we as a nation want to reflect certain fundamental 
beliefs and fundamental rights.
  I add that these are not American values that we speak of. These are 
not American values that this amendment is addressing. These are human 
values. They are basic human rights.
  It was not the U.S. Supreme Court that I quoted in condemnation of 
forced abortion. It was the Nuremberg War Tribunal that said forced 
abortion is a crime against humanity.
  These are human values. We cannot excuse a nation by saying they are 
new at this thing of freedom. No. In fact, it is not that the communist 
rulers of China don't understand freedom. It is that they understand 
freedom all too well, and they are determined to repress it.
  The issue in China is control, and the Chinese Communist Government 
is determined to use whatever means necessary and whatever means at 
their disposal to insure that they maintain control, even to the point 
of persecuting those who might say there is a power above and beyond 
the power of the Chinese Government.
  I say to my distinguished colleague from Hawaii that the issue is not 
isolation. It is certainly not isolation. There is no way that we 
could, even if we wished to, isolate the largest, most populist nation 
in the world.
  It is, though, whether we as a country and we as a people are going 
to stand for something other than profits.
  That is what this amendment is about. That is why I believe, I have 
faith, that my colleagues in the Senate will support an amendment that 
really reflects the best not only of American values but human values.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes, because I know 
my colleague wants to move forward.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii is the best of the best 
Senators. I don't like to be in disagreement with him. I am certainly 
not in disagreement with his analysis about our own history. There is 
nobody who can speak with more eloquence and more integrity about 
injustices in our country toward minorities and violations of people's 
human rights than the Senator from Hawaii. There is no question about 
it.
  But I also believe, as my colleague from Arkansas has ably pointed 
out, that it is also important for other countries, and it would have 
been an important relation for our country to speak out.
  When I think about South Africa, I think about what President Mandela 
said. One of the things he said over and over again, was when the 
people in the United States took action, it was when we put the 
pressure--not just symbolic politics--that things began to break open, 
and finally we were able to end the awful system of subjugation of 
people because of the color of their skin.
  When I think even about our relations with the former Soviet Union, 
we were tough on these human rights violations.
  I really believe that this amendment is just a very modest beginning 
which says, look, when you have people who are directly guilty of 
religious persecution, and when you have people who are directly guilty 
of forced sterilization, forced abortion--and we even had waivers for 
the Presidents. But what we are saying is then let's take this into 
account. They ought not to be given travel visas to our country.
  This is moderate, I say to my colleagues. This is but a step forward. 
But it sends such a powerful and important message about what our 
values are all about, what we are about as a nation. And it supports 
the people in China. This really is an important amendment. I hope that 
our colleagues will vote for it and will give it overwhelming support.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before I respond, I again would like to 
request Senators to come forward, and let us see their amendments.
  Earlier today I said of the 46--it is now 47 amendments that we know 
of--that we had agreed to accept 23 of them.
  My staff informs me that the difficulty is we can't accept them 
because we haven't seen the final version of them. We hope that those 
will be produced here so we can dispose of the amendments that we are 
willing to accept expeditiously with very short comments from Members.
  We are going to have over 50 amendments. We are going to finish this 
bill by tomorrow. I advise Members and staff to start bringing in cots 
for people to rest on tonight unless we get through them very quickly.

  Mr. President, I have to confess to my friends, both of them who have 
spoken in favor of this amendment, that this Senator is at a loss to 
understand section 9012, which says that no funds can be used to pay 
the travel expenses and per diem for the participation in conferences, 
exchanges, programs, et cetera, of any national from the People's 
Republic of China who is the head or political secretary of any Chinese 
Government-created or approved organization. And it lists the Chinese 
Buddhist Association, the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, the 
National Congress of Catholic Representatives, the Chinese Catholic 
Bishops' Conference, the Chinese Protestant Three-Self Patriotic 
Movement, the China Christian Council, the Chinese Taoist Association, 
the Chinese Islamic Association, and then a series of civilian and 
military officials and employees of Government to carry out the 
specific policies that are listed, such as promoting or participating 
in policies or practices which hinder religious activities, or the free 
expression of religious beliefs.
  I am at a loss to understand that section. Perhaps the Senator would 
explain that to me.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The officials that are listed of the various 
religious organizations that the Senator listed in the amendment are, 
in fact, Government employees, and Government agents.
  They are those at the head of these associations. These are the 
registered churches that are used as tools and the agents of the 
Chinese Communist Government in the repression of those various groups. 
It does not refer to the pastors, the ministers, the priests of local 
congregations, but the heads of these associations which, in fact, work 
for the Communist Chinese Government and are those that are 
perpetrating the very persecution against those groups.

[[Page S9340]]

  So while there are millions of Chinese today underground in 
unregistered churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, there is also 
the so-called Patriotic Church, the recognized church by the Government 
which is strictly controlled, names, addresses of worshipers to be 
turned into the Government. Messages that are proclaimed are closely 
censored by the Government. That is why those officials would be 
included if, in fact, the Secretary of State found credible evidence 
that they were practicing perpetrating religious persecution.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sad to say to my friend I don't understand that 
section to have that limitation, but, in any event, it is a very 
controversial subject to be added to the Defense appropriations bill. 
In conferring with Members yesterday, it was the position that we took 
at the time that we were going to do our utmost to keep controversial 
subjects that would lead to extended debate off of this bill. The only 
way to do that is, once we have had a short explanation of it in 
courtesy to the presenting Senator, it was going to be my intention to 
move to table any such amendment, not just this one but any such 
amendment.
  Therefore, on the basis of the policy that we have announced, I move 
to table the Senator's amendment and ask 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 amendment is set aside and the vote will 
occur after 2 p.m. today.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at the request of 
Senator Thomas that a letter signed by himself and Senator Murkowski, 
Senator Biden, Senator Kerry, Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Hagel, 
Senator Grams, Senator Feinstein, Senator Robb, and Senator Lieberman, 
and an excerpt from Newsweek be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1998.
       Dear Colleague: When the Senate returns to consideration of 
     the DOD Authorization bill, S. 2057, we expect a series of 
     amendments to be offered concerning the People's Republic of 
     China. These amendments, if accepted, would do serious damage 
     to our bilateral relationship and halt a decade of U.S. 
     efforts to encourage greater Chinese adherence to 
     international norms in such areas as nonproliferation, human 
     rights, and trade.
       In relative terms, in the last year China has shown 
     improvement in several areas which the U.S. has specifically 
     indicated are important to us. Relations with Taiwan have 
     stabilized, several prominent dissents have been released 
     from prison, enforcement of or agreements on intellectual 
     property rights have been stepped up, the revision of Hong 
     Kong has gone smoothly, and China's agreement not to devalue 
     its currency helped stabilize Asia's economic crisis.
       Has this been enough change? Clearly not. But the question 
     is: how do we best encourage more change in China? Do we do 
     so by isolating one fourth of the world's population, by 
     denying visas to most members of its government, by denying 
     it access to any international concessional loans, and by 
     backing it into a corner and declaring it a pariah as these 
     amendments would do?
       Or, rather, is the better course to engage China, to expand 
     dialogue, to invite China to live up to its aspirations as a 
     world power, to expose the country to the norms of democracy 
     and human rights and thereby draw it further into the family 
     of nations?
       We are all for human rights; there's no dispute about that. 
     But the question is, how do be best achieve human rights? We 
     think it's through engagement.
       We urge you to look beyond the artfully-crafted titles of 
     these amendments to their actual content and effect. One 
     would require that the United States to oppose the provision 
     of any international concessional loan to China, its 
     citizens, or businesses, even if the loan were to be used in 
     a manner which would promote democracy or human rights. This 
     same amendment would require every U.S. national involved in 
     conducting any significant business in China to register with 
     the Commerce Department and to agree to abide by a set of 
     government-imposed ``business principles'' mandated in the 
     amendment. On the eve of President Clinton's trip to China, 
     the raft of radical China-related amendments threatens to 
     undermine our relationship just when it is most crucial to 
     advance vital U.S. interests.
       Several of the amendments contain provisions which are 
     sufficiently vague so as to effectively bar the grant of any 
     entrance visa to the United States to every member of the 
     Chinese government. Those provisions not only countervene 
     many of our international treaty commitments, but are 
     completely at odds with one of the amendments which would 
     prohibit the United States from funding the participation of 
     a great proportion of Chinese officials in any State 
     Department, USIA, or USAID conference, exchange program, or 
     activity; and with another amendment which urges agencies of 
     the U.S. Government to increase programs between the two 
     countries.
       Finally, many of the amendments are drawn from bills which 
     have yet to be considered by the committee of jurisdiction, 
     the Foreign Relations Committee. That committee will review 
     the bills at a June 18 hearing, and they are scheduled to be 
     marked-up in committee on June 23. Legislation such as this 
     that would have such a profound effect on US-China relations 
     warrant careful committee consideration. They should not be 
     subject of an attempt to circumvent the committee process.
       In the short twenty years since we first officially engaged 
     China, that country has opened up to the outside world, 
     rejected Maoism, initiated extensive market reforms, 
     witnessed a growing grass-roots movement towards increased 
     democratization, agreed to be bound by major international 
     nonproliferation and human rights agreements, and is on the 
     verge of dismantling its state-run enterprises. We can 
     continue to nurture that transformation through further 
     engagement, or we can capitualte to the voices of isolation 
     and containment that these amendments represent and negate 
     all the advances made so far.
       We hope that you will agree with us and choose engagement. 
     We strongly urge you to vote against these amendments.
           Sincerely,
         Craig Thomas, Chairman, Subcommittee on East Asian and 
           Pacific Affairs, Committee on Foreign Relations; Frank 
           H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural 
           Resources; Chuck Hagel, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
           International Economic Policy, Committee on Foreign 
           Relations; Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Member, 
           Committee on Foreign Relations; John F. Kerry, Ranking 
           Member, Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 
           Committee on Foreign Relations; Gordon Smith, Chairman, 
           Subcommittee on European Affairs, Committee on Foreign 
           Relations; Rod Grams, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
           International Operations, Committee on Foreign 
           Relations; Charles S. Robb, Ranking Member, 
           Subcommittee on Near East/South Asian Affairs, 
           Committee on Foreign Relations; Dianne Feinstein, 
           Ranking Member, Subcommittee on International 
           Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations; Joseph L. 
           Lieberman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Acquisition 
           and Technology, Committee on Armed Services.
                                  ____


                     [From Newsweek, July 6, 1998]

   Help ``Independent Spirits''--A Gulag Veteran Appraises Clinton's 
                                Mission

                             (By Wang Dan)

       President Clinton is taking a lot of heat for his decision 
     to visit China in spite of the serious human-rights problems 
     there. I spent seven years in prison in China for my 
     activities on Tiananmen Square in 1989, so I certainly share 
     the view that the Chinese government must change its ways. 
     But I also think the American president can accomplish some 
     positive things with his trip.
       It's critically important to have a broad range of contacts 
     with China. The West should not try to isolate the communist 
     regime or limit contact to political exchange. Washington 
     needs to maintain dialogue on many fronts at once: economic, 
     cultural, academic, anything that helps build civil society. 
     The key to democracy in China is independence. My country 
     needs independent intellectuals, independent economic actors, 
     independent spirits.
       Economic change does influence political change. China's 
     economic development will be good for the West as well as for 
     the Chinese people. China needs Most Favored Nation trade 
     status with the United States, and it should fully enter the 
     world trading system. The terms of that entry must be 
     negotiated, of course, but in any case the rest of the world 
     must not break its contact with China.
       President Clinton's visit to Tiananmen Square did not look 
     like a sacrilege to the Chinese people. He didn't stand in 
     the middle of the square, but along the side, outside the 
     Great Hall of the People. All foreign leaders go there. 
     Clinton was right later to mention the events of June 4, 
     1989. He must continue to stick up for such political 
     prisoners as Liu Nianchun, imprisoned in 1995 for three 
     years; Li Hai, a former student at Peking University 
     sentenced to nine years in 1995; and Hu Shigen, another 
     former Peking University student who was sentenced to 20 
     years in 1994. All were convicted on trumped-up criminal 
     charges. These people must never be forgotten. Nor should the 
     routine arrest and harassment of other dissidents, which 
     continued last week.
       It's hard to say exactly what Chinese leaders think about 
     Clinton. The scandals in Washington allegedly implicating 
     Chinese officials only make the picture murkier. But one 
     thing is clear: China's leaders always view American 
     presidents as competitors. They believe that the United 
     States doesn't want China to grow, and they are suspicious of 
     its motives. That made Clinton's task in China more difficult 
     still. I wish him well.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S9341]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I keep asking and requesting that Members 
come forward with these amendments. I have asked now the leadership to 
clear a unanimous consent request that all amendments have to be filed 
by 4. I know it is not cleared yet, but I am again requesting that and 
letting people know somehow or other we are going to get these 
amendments. It may be that I will just have to move to go to third 
reading, we will have a vote to go to third reading and cut them all 
off.
  For those people who want to go home, I will give them an avenue to 
get home, and that is let's just vote on this bill. But if people won't 
bring the amendments to us, we are going to have to take some drastic 
steps here to limit the number of amendments we can consider. I know 
that it is an extraordinary procedure, but these are extraordinary 
times. I would like at least to have the amendments we have said we 
would accept. Twenty-three Members out there with amendments I said we 
would accept, and they have not brought them over. I plead with the 
Senate to think about proceeding with this bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Texas is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3409

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress that the readiness of the 
United States Armed Forces to execute the National Security Strategy of 
  the United States is eroded from a combination of declining defense 
   budgets and expanded missions, including the ongoing, open-ended 
    commitment of U.S. forces to the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3409.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. _. (a): Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1989,
       (A) The national defense budget has been cut in half as a 
     percentage of the gross domestic product;
       (B) The national defense budget has been cut by over $120 
     billion in real terms;
       (C) The U.S. military force structure has been reduced by 
     more than 30 percent;
       (D) The Department of Defense's operations and maintenance 
     accounts have been reduced by 40 percent;
       (E) The Department of Defense's procurement funding has 
     declined by more than 50 percent;
       (F) U.S. military operational commitments have increased 
     fourfold;
       (G) The Army has reduced its ranks by over 630,000 soldiers 
     and civilians, closed over 700 installations at home and 
     overseas, and cut 10 divisions from its force structure;
       (H) The Army has reduced its presence in Europe from 
     215,000 to 65,000 personnel;
       (I) The Army has averaged 14 deployments every four years, 
     increased significantly from the Cold War trend of one 
     deployment every four years;
       (J) The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent, while 
     experiencing a four-fold increase in operational commitments.
       (2) In 1992, 37 percent of the Navy's fleet was deployed at 
     any given time. Today that number is 57 percent; at its 
     present rate, it will climb to 62 percent by 2005.
       (3) The Navy Surface Warfare Officer community will fall 
     short of its needs a 40 percent increase in retention to meet 
     requirements;
       (4) The Air Force is 18 percent short of its retention goal 
     for second-term airmen;
       (5) The Air Force is more than 800 pilots short, and more 
     than 70 percent eligible for retention bonuses have turned 
     them down in favor of separation;
       (6) The Army faces critical personnel shortages in combat 
     units, forcing unit commanders to borrow troops from other 
     units just to participate in training exercises.
       (7) An Air Force F-16 squadron commander testified before 
     the House National Security Committee that his unit was 
     forced to borrow three aircraft and use cannibalized parts 
     from four other F-16s in order to deploy to Southwest Asia;
       (8) In 1997, the Army averaged 31,000 soldiers deployed 
     away from their home station in support of military 
     operations in 70 countries with the average deployment 
     lasting 125 days;
       (9) Critical shortfalls in meeting recruiting and retention 
     goals is seriously affecting the ability of the Army to train 
     and deploy. The Army reduced its recruiting goals for 1998 by 
     12,000 personnel;
       (10) In fiscal year 1997, the Army fell short of its 
     recruiting goal for critical infantry soldiers by almost 
     5,000. As of February 15, 1998, Army-wide shortages existed 
     for 28 Army specialities. Many positions in squads and crews 
     are left unfilled or minimally filled because personnel are 
     diverted to work in key positions elsewhere;
       (11) The Navy reports it will fall short of enlisted sailor 
     recruitment for 1998 by 10,000
       (12) One in ten Air Force front-line units are not combat 
     ready;
       (13) Ten Air Force technical specialties, representing 
     thousands of airmen, deployed away from their home station 
     for longer than the Air Force standard 120-day mark in 1997;
       (14) The Air Force fell short of its reenlistment rate for 
     mid-career enlisted personnel by an average of six percent, 
     with key war fighting career fields experiencing even larger 
     drops in reenlistments;
       (15) In 1997, U.S. Marines in the operating forces have 
     deployed on more than 200 exercises, rotational deployments, 
     or actual contingencies.
       (16) U.S. Marine Corps maintenance forces are only able to 
     maintain 92 percent ground equipment and 77 percent aviation 
     equipment readiness rates due to excessive deployments of 
     troops and equipment;
       (17) The National Security Strategy of the United States 
     assumes the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevail in 
     two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously.
       (18) To execute the National Security of the United States, 
     the U.S. Army's five later-deploying divisions, which 
     constitute almost half of the Army's active combat forces, 
     are critical to the success of specific war plans;
       (19) According to commanders in these divisions, the 
     practice of under staffing squads and crews that are 
     responsible for training, and assigning personnel to other 
     units as fillers for exercises and operations, has become 
     common and is degrading unit capability and readiness.
       (20) In the aggregate, the Army's later-deploying divisions 
     were assigned 93 percent of their authorized personnel at the 
     beginning of fiscal year 1998. In one specific case, the 1st 
     Armored Division was staffed at 94 percent in the aggregate; 
     however, its combat support and service support specialties 
     were filled at below 85 percent, and captains and majors were 
     filled at 73 percent.
       (21) At the 10th Infantry Division, only 138 of 162 
     infantry squads were fully or minimally filled, and 36 of the 
     filled squads were unqualified. At the 1st Brigade of the 1st 
     Infantry Division, only 56 percent of the authorized infantry 
     soldiers for its Bradley Fighting Vehicles were assigned, and 
     in the 2nd Brigade, 21 of 48 infantry squads had no personnel 
     assigned. At the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, 
     only 16 of 116 M1A1 tanks had full crews and were qualified, 
     and in one of the Brigade's two armor battalions, 14 of 58 
     tanks had no crewmembers assigned because the personnel were 
     deployed to Bosnia.
       (23) At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the five later-
     deploying divisions critical to the execution of the U.S. 
     National Security Strategy were short nearly 1,900 of the 
     total 25,357 Non-Commissioned Officers authorized, and as of 
     February 15, 1998, this shortage had grown to almost 2,200.
       (24) Rotation of units to Bosnia is having a direct and 
     negative impact on the ability of later-deploying divisions 
     to maintain the training and readiness levels needed to 
     execute their mission in a major regional conflict. 
     Indications of this include:
       (A) The reassignment by the Commander of the 3rd Brigade 
     Combat Team of 63 soldiers within the brigade to serve in 
     infantry squads of a deploying unit of 800 troops, stripping 
     non-deploying infantry and armor units of maintenance 
     personel, and reassigning Non-Commissioned Officers and 
     support personnel to the task force from throughout the 
     brigade;
       (B) Cancellation of gunnery exercises for at least two 
     armor battalions in later-deploying divisions, causing 43 of 
     116 tank crews to lose their qualifications on the weapon 
     system;
       (C) Hiring of outside contract personnel by 1st Armored and 
     1st Infantry later-deploying divisions to perform routine 
     maintenance.
       (25) National Guard budget shortfalls compromise the 
     Guard's readiness levels, capabilities, force structure, and 
     end strength, putting the Guard's personel, schools, 
     training, full-time support, retention and recruitment, and 
     morale at risk.
       (26) The President's budget requests for the National Guard 
     have been insufficient, notwithstanding the frequent calls on 
     the Guard to handle wide-ranging tasks, including deployments 
     in Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia.
       (b) Sense of Congress:
       (1) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) The readiness of U.S. military forces to execute the 
     National Security Strategy of the United States is being 
     eroded from a

[[Page S9342]]

     combination of declining defense budgets and expanded 
     missions;
       (B) The ongoing, open-ended commitment of U.S. forces to 
     the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia is causing assigned and 
     supporting units to compromise their principle wartime 
     assignments;
       (C) Defense appropriations are not keeping pace with the 
     expanding needs of the armed forces.
       (c) Report Requirement.
       (1) Not later than June 1, 1999, the President shall submit 
     to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and to the Committees on Appropriations in 
     both Houses, a report on the military readiness of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States. The President shall include in 
     the report a detailed discussion of the competition for 
     resources service-by-service caused by the ongoing commitment 
     to the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, including in those 
     units that are supporting but not directly deployed to 
     Bosnia. The President shall specifically include in the 
     report the following:
       (A) an assessment of current force structure and its 
     sufficiency to execute the National Security Strategy of the 
     United States;
       (B) an outline of the service-by-service force structure 
     expected to be committed to a major regional contingency as 
     envisioned in the National Security Strategy of the United 
     States;
       (C) a comparison of the force structures outlined in sub-
     paragraph (c)(1)(B) above with the service-by-service order 
     of battle in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, as a 
     representative and recent major regional conflict;
       (D) the force structure and defense appropriation increases 
     that are necessary to execute the National Security Strategy 
     of the United States assuming current projected ground force 
     levels assigned to the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia are 
     unchanged;
       (E) a discussion of the U.S. ground force level in Bosnia 
     that can be sustained without impacting the ability of the 
     Armed Forces to execute the National Security Strategy of the 
     United States, assuming no increases in force structure and 
     defense appropriations during the period in which ground 
     forces are assigned to Bosnia.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of Congress 
regarding the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces to execute the 
national security strategy of the United States. So many people are now 
talking about the hollow military that we seem to be going into, and I 
think it is time that Congress address the concern that all of us have 
that we may be driving our military down to the point that we will not 
be able to respond if something happens where we are needed anywhere in 
the world.
  So, I make the following findings:
  That since 1989:
  The national defense budget has been cut in half as a percentage of 
the gross domestic product;
  The national defense budget has been cut by over $120 billion in real 
terms;
  The U.S. military force structure has been reduced by more than 30 
percent;
  The Department of Defense's operations and maintenance accounts have 
been reduced by 40 percent;
  The Department of Defense's procurement funding has declined by more 
than 50 percent;
  U.S. military operational commitments have increased fourfold.
  It is clear the Army has reduced its ranks by over 630,000 soldiers 
and civilians, closed over 700 installations at home and overseas and 
cut 10 divisions from its force structure.
  The Army has reduced its presence in Europe from 215,000 to 65,000 
personnel.
  The Army has averaged 14 deployments every four years, increased 
significantly from the Cold War trend of one deployment every four 
years.
  The Air Force has downsized by nearly 40 percent,while experiencing a 
four-fold increase in operation commitments.
  In 1992, 37 percent of the Navy's fleet was deployed at any given 
time. Today that number is 57 percent; at its present rate, it will 
climb to 62 percent by 2005.
  The Navy Surface Warfare Officer community will fall short of its 
needs a 40 percent increase in retention to meet requirements;
  The Air Force is 18 percent short of its retention goal for second-
term airmen.
  We know the Air Force is more than 800 pilots short, and we know that 
our experienced pilots have not re-upped, even in the face of a $60,000 
bonus.
  The Army faces critical personnel shortages in combat units, forcing 
unit commanders to borrow troops from other units just to participate 
in training exercises.
  In 1997, the Army averaged 31,000 soldiers deployed away from their 
home station in support of military operations in 70 countries with the 
average deployment lasting 125 days.
  Critical shortfalls in meeting recruiting and retention goals is 
seriously affecting the ability of the Army to train and deploy. The 
Army reduced its recruiting goal for 1998 by 12,000 personnel.
  The Navy reports it will fall short of enlisted sailor recruitment 
for 1998 by 10,000.
  One in ten Air Force front-line units are not combat ready.
  Ten Air Force technical specialties, representing thousands of 
airmen, deployed away from their home station for longer than the Air 
Force standard 120-day mark in 1997.
  In 1997, U.S. Marines in the operating forces have deployed on more 
than 200 exercises, rotational deployments, or actual contingencies.
  U.S. Marine Corps maintenance forces are only able to maintain 92 
percent ground equipment and 77 percent aviation equipment readiness 
rates due to excessive deployments of troops and equipment;
  The National Security Strategy of the United States assumes the 
ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to prevail in two major regional 
conflicts nearly simultaneously.
  Mr. President, all of us, including the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas who is a former marine, know that ``nearly'' has been inserted 
into our national security strategy. Our strategy used to be that we 
would have the ability to prevail in two major regional conflicts 
simultaneously. Today, we are saying ``nearly simultaneously,'' yet 
none of us who have studied these issues believe that we are ready, 
today, even for this ramped down mission.
  To execute the National Security of the United States, the U.S. 
Army's five later-deploying divisions, which constitute almost half of 
the Army's active combat forces, are critical if the success of 
specific war plans can be achieved.
  According to commanders in these divisions, the practice of under 
staffing squads and crews that are responsible for training, and 
assigning personnel to other units as fillers for exercises and 
operations, has become common and is degrading unit capability and 
readiness.
  In the aggregate, the Army's later-deploying divisions were assigned 
93 percent of their authorized personnel at the beginning of fiscal 
year 1998. In one specific case, the 1st Armored Division was staffed 
at 94 percent in the aggregate; however, its combat support and service 
support specialties were filled at below 85 percent, and captains and 
majors were filled at 73 percent.
  At the 10th Infantry Division, only 138 of 162 infantry squads were 
fully or minimally filled, and 36 of the filled squads were 
unqualified.
  At the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the five later-deploying 
divisions critical to the execution of the U.S. National Security 
Strategy were short nearly 1,900 of the total 25,357 Non-Commissioned 
Officers authorized, and as of February 15, 1998, this shortage had 
grown to almost 2,200.
  Rotation of units to Bosnia is having a direct and negative impact on 
the ability of later-deploying divisions to maintain the training and 
readiness levels needed to executive their mission in a major regional 
conflict. Indications of this include;
  The reassignment by the Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of 
63 soldiers within the brigade to serve in infantry squads of a 
deploying unit of 800 troops, stripping non-deploying infantry and 
armor units of maintenance personnel, and reassigning Non-Commissioned 
Officers and support personnel to the task force from throughout the 
brigade;
  Cancellation of gunnery exercises for at least two armor battalions 
in later-deploying divisions, causing 43 of 116 tank crews to lose 
their qualifications on the weapon system;
  Hiring of outside contract personnel by 1st Armored and 1st Infantry 
later-deploying divisions to perform routine maintenance.
  Mr. President, these are the facts. Every one of the facts that I 
have read is absolutely in print, in the report of the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, in the DOD budget for fiscal year 1999, and a 
compilation of statements from the Department of Defense vice chiefs in 
a

[[Page S9343]]

hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and every other 
part of what I have just read has been documented. These are from the 
Defense Department's own statistics.
  So I am asking for the sense of Congress, that we declare that:
  The readiness of U.S. military forces to execute the National 
Security Strategy of the United States is being eroded from a 
combination of declining defense budgets and expanded missions;
  The ongoing, open-ended commitment of U.S. forces to the peacekeeping 
mission in Bosnia is causing assigned and supporting units to 
compromise their principle wartime assignments.
  Defense appropriations are not keeping pace with the expanding needs 
of the Armed Forces.
  So I am asking for a report by June 1, 1999 from: the President of 
the United States to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives, and 
to the Committees on Appropriations in both Houses, a report on the 
military readiness of the Armed Forces of the United States.
  The President shall include in the report a detailed discussion of 
the competition for resources service-by-service caused by the ongoing 
commitment to the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, including in those 
units that are supporting but not directly deployed to Bosnia.
  What we are asking, Mr. President, is for an assessment of where we 
are. We have all talked about the problems we have seen in small 
instances and different pieces of testimony. What I have done in this 
sense of the Senate is put it all together. I have taken from the 
Department of Defense its own authorization, its own budget, its 
Quadrennial Defense Review, from statements made before one of our two 
committees that talked about the problems in specific detail.
  I think it is time that we in Congress now say we have put it all 
together and we want a report on the state of our readiness. Let's look 
at all of the factors and let's determine that we have a problem, that 
we have to determine what to do about it, and let's go forward and try 
to work with the administration, with the President, with the Secretary 
of Defense, and look at the big picture, and the big picture and the 
goal for all of us is that we would be able to meet the national 
security strategy of the United States, that we would be able to 
prevail in two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously.
  I prefer simultaneously, but, nevertheless, we are not even up to the 
goal that we have stated, and we want to do what is our responsibility 
in the U.S. Congress, and that is, ask for the report, let's study the 
problem and let's come up with a solution together with the Armed 
Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate 
and the U.S. House.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support me in this 
sense of Congress. It is just the beginning of our responsibility to 
address what we see as the problems in our military and that we would 
then be able to take the report and take the necessary steps to correct 
the backward motion that we are making with regard to the military 
readiness and the security of our country.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas for her 
presentation. It is my hope we will be able to accept that amendment. I 
have referred it to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and 
we are hopeful that we can reach that conclusion later.

                          ____________________