[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9343-S9346]
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.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from California
would like to speak on the Hutchinson amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Not on this amendment, Mr. President, but the
Hutchinson amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. The Hutchinson amendment that I made a motion to table,
the one pertaining to China.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. Although I made a motion to table, I think it is in
order until 2 o'clock that they may be able to speak.
Amendment No. 3409
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am prepared to leave the floor, but I have two
things. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham be added as
a cosponsor of amendment No. 3409.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Secondly, I ask the manager of the bill if he still
wants me to offer the other amendment that I was to offer, or would he
prefer to go forward with Senator Feinstein, and I can always do that
after the votes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I did request the Senator from Texas
offer her Bosnia amendment so it will be the pending amendment after
the votes this afternoon. I appreciate that she did that at this time.
I urge she save the statement to be made until after the Senator from
California, who has been waiting to make comments on the China
amendment which I have already moved to table.
Amendment No. 3391, As Modified
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical correction
to amendment No. 3391 previously adopted. I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be modified. It is strictly a
[[Page S9344]]
technical error in the amendment that was previously adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3391), as modified, is as follows:
On page 34, line 24, strike out all after ``$94,500,000''
down to and including ``1999'' on page 35, line 7.
On page 42, line 1, strike out the amount
``$2,000,000,000'', and insert the amount ``$1,775,000,000''.
On page 99, in between lines 17 and 18, insert the
following:
Sec. 8 . (a) In addition to funds provided under title I
of this Act, the following amounts are hereby appropriated:
for ``Military Personnel, Army'', $58,000,000; for ``Military
Personnel, Navy'', $43,000,000; for ``Military Personnel,
Marine Corps'', $14,000,000; for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $44,000,000; for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'',
$5,377,000; for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $3,684,000; for
``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', $1,103,000; for
``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $1,000,000; for ``National
Guard Personnel, Army'', $9,392,000; and for ``National Guard
Personnel, Air Force'', $4,112,000''.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the
total amount available in this Act for ``Quality of Life
Enhancements, Defense'', real property maintenance is hereby
decreased by reducing the total amounts appropriated in the
following accounts: ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', by
$58,000,000; ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', by
$43,000,000; ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', by
$14,000,000; and ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', by
$44,000,000.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the
total amount appropriated under the heading ``National Guard
and Reserve Equipment'', is hereby reduced by $24,668,000.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for the Senator from California to speak on the amendment that
was offered by Senator Hutchinson, following the offering of the Bosnia
amendment by the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered. The
Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the unanimous consent
agreement was to allow me to offer my amendment, and then I will defer
to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 3413
(Purpose: To condition the use of appropriated funds for the purpose of
an orderly and honorable reduction of U.S. ground forces in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Craig, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of Oregon and Mr.
Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 3413.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. .(a) The Congress finds the following:
(1) United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina have accomplished the military mission
assigned to them as a component of the Implementation and
Stabilization Forces.
(2) The continuing and open-ended commitment of U.S. ground
forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is subject
to the oversight authority of the Congress.
(3) Congress may limit the use of appropriated funds to
create the conditions for an orderly and honorable withdrawal
of U.S. troops from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(4) On November 27, 1995, the President affirmed that
United States participation in the multinational military
Implementation Force in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina would terminate in about one year.
(5) The President declared the expiration date of the
mandate for the Implementation Force to be December 20, 1996.
(6) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff expressed confidence that the Implementation
Force would complete its mission in about one year.
(7) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff expressed the critical importance of
establishing a firm deadline in the absence of which there is
a potential for expansion of the mission of U.S. forces.
(8) On October 3, 1996, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff announced the intention of the United States
Administration to delay the removal of United States Armed
Forces personnel from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
until March 1997.
(9) In November 1996 the President announced his intention
to further extend the deployment of United States Armed
Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina until June
1998.
(10) The President did not request authorization by the
Congress of a policy that would result in the further
deployment of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina until June 1998.
(11) Notwithstanding the passage of two previously
established deadlines, the reaffirmation of those deadlines
by senior national security officials, and the endorsement by
those same national security officials of the importance of
having a deadline as a hedge against an expanded mission, the
President announced on December 17, 1997 that establishing a
deadline had been a mistake and that U.S. ground combat
forces were committed to the NATO-led mission in Bosnia for
the indefinite future.
(12) NATO military forces have increased their
participation in law enforcement, particularly police
activities.
(13) U.S. Commanders of NATO have stated on several
occasions that, in accordance with the Dayton Peace Accords,
the principal responsibility for such law enforcement and
police activities lies with the Bosnian parties themselves.
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year may not be
obligated for the ground elements of the United States Armed
Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina except as
conditioned below.
(1) The President shall continue the ongoing withdrawal of
American forces from the NATO Stabilization Force in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina such that U.S. ground
forces in that force or the planned multi-national successor
force shall not exceed:
(A) 6500, by February 2, 1999;
(B) 5000, by October 1, 1999.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply--
(1) to the extent necessary for U.S. ground forces to
protect themselves as the drawdowns outlined in sub-paragraph
(a)(1) proceeds;
(2) to the extent necessary to support a limited number of
United States military personnel sufficient only to protect
United States diplomatic facilities in existence on the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(3) to the extent necessary to support non-combat military
personnel sufficient only to advise the commanders of North
Atlantic Treaty Organization peacekeeping operations in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and
(4) to U.S. ground forces that may be deployed as part of
NATO containment operations in regions surrounding the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(c) Construction of Section.--Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to restrict the authority of the President under
the Constitution to protect the lives of United States
citizens.
(d) Limitation on Support for Law Enforcement Activities in
Bosnia.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Defense for any fiscal year
may be obligated or expended after the date of the enactment
of this Act for the--
(1) conduct of, or direct support for, law enforcement and
police activities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
except for the training of law enforcement personnel or to
prevent imminent loss of life;
(2) conduct of, or support for, any activity in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that may have the effect
of jeopardizing the primary mission of the NATO-led force in
preventing armed conflict between the Federation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina and the Repulika Srpska (`Bosnian Entities');
(3) transfer of refugees within the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina that, in the opinion of the commander of NATO
Forces involved in such transfer--
(A) has as one of its purposes the acquisition of control
by a Bosnia Entity of territory allocated to the other
Bosnian Entity under the Dayton Peace Agreement; or
(B) may expose United States Armed Forces to substantial
risk to their personal safety; and
(4) implementation of any decision to change the legal
status of any territory within the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina unless expressly agreed to by all signatories to
the Dayton Peace Agreement.
SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL REPORT.
(a) Not later than December 1, 1998, the President shall
submit to Congress a report on the progress towards meeting
the drawdown limit established in section 2(a).
(b) The report under paragraph (a) shall include an
identification of the specific steps taken by the United
States Government to transfer the United States portion of
the peacekeeping mission in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina to European allied nations or organizations.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is the amendment on Bosnia that we will discuss
[[Page S9345]]
immediately following the stacked votes this afternoon. I am happy to
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from California is
finally recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 3124
Mr. President, as one who has watched China for some 35 years now,
and been a frequent visitor for the past 20 years, I would like to make
a few comments on the Hutchinson amendment, which effectively would set
up a protocol whereby officials beneath the rank of Cabinet officials
could be refused visas to come to this country.
The amendment, while it promotes a worthy goal, goes about it in a
completely, I believe, counterproductive way. I do not think there is
any Senator in this body who does not condemn the practice of forced
abortion, forced sterilization, or any other coercive population
control device or measure. We all condemn it.
I do not think there is any Senator in this body who does not condemn
religious persecution that prevents people from freely exercising their
own personal religious beliefs. Of course, not. We all condemn that.
This amendment takes a stand on a principle but it does nothing to help
solve the problem it is designed to address, and there is the rub.
We all agree there are certain practices and policies still in China
that we oppose. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: What is
the best contribution we can make to producing change, real change, in
China? I submit that the answer is, we can engage China at all levels,
all levels of government. Academia, business, law, and every other kind
of social interaction should be energized. We should welcome every
chance to interact with the Chinese people and officials as an
opportunity to expose them to our values, to expose them to the rule of
law, to Democratic values, to individual liberties.
The path set out by this amendment, I believe, is extraordinarily
dangerous and it takes us on the opposite path. It is a path of
isolation and containment. It cuts ourselves off from the very people
we need to help educate and persuade and expose to Western values. And
it would surely spark similar countermeasures by the Chinese Government
to deny visas to U.S. officials, further deepening our isolation from
one another, and developing the adversarial relationship that many of
us believe need never happen. It could go on and on in a vicious cycle.
Do any of my colleagues seriously believe that any Chinese official
would be dissuaded from conducting any human rights action because they
would be denied a visa to the United States? I think not. I do deeply
believe that if Chinese officials are exposed to U.S. society--and this
has begun. I know it has been criticized, but I see it working. I come
from a Pacific rim State where there is a great deal of interaction
with Asia. I see our values go across the Pacific. I see them enter the
Chinese mainland. I see the changes that have been made.
Mr. President, when Richard Nixon went to China in 1972, China was
still in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. There has never been a
more brutal period in Chinese history than the Cultural Revolution. We
have seen those dark days recede. We have seen a new leadership in
place.
For the first time, I believe that this new leader now has the face,
has consolidated his power, to begin to make certain major reforms. I
very deeply believe we are going to see those reforms in the next few
years. Already, there is writing here and in China about the order
given to the Chinese military to remove themselves from all commercial
endeavors.
Surprisingly enough, this, for the first time, has been done with
transparency--in other words, a public statement for all to know that
the new policy of the Chinese Government is that the Chinese military
will not run commercial operations in trade, in business, or in any
other pursuit. This is a very healthy, a very positive advance, which I
think the entire free world should take hold of.
Additionally, you heard voluntarily the President of China, after
many of us have importuned him over a long period of time, I myself
beginning in 1991 carrying messages from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama,
to the President of China, urging that there be a meeting--for the
first time, the President of China has said publicly, with
transparency, that if His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, makes a statement
that respects the fact that Tibet is a part of China and that
independence is not a part of the discussions, that there can be
meetings that follow.
This is, true, a breakthrough in rhetoric, but it has never happened
before in the 8 years I have been trying to achieve it. That happened
while the President was in China. So these changes are being made.
One by one--perhaps not enough--the freeing of political dissidents,
the adoption of a 30-day period of administrative leave, the Chinese
interests in developing exchanges in the rule of law, to develop a
modern commercial code, a modern criminal code, hopefully to press for
the independence of the judicial branch of Government which currently
is subject to party control --all of these are the breakthroughs that
we should begin to press.
We have certain intellectual property, certain intellectual property
concerns. How could those ever be brought about if we could not have an
exchange of lower level officials to see to it that intellectual
property laws are being carried out? It makes no sense to me. I believe
it is one step toward containment and isolation. I believe that both of
those are unwarranted, highly counterproductive----
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. You were speaking very positively about the changes
in China. My question is, How do we reconcile the recent round of
arrests that occurred in the 2 weeks--actually, the week subsequent to
the President's visit--headlined in all of the newspapers across the
country? Those who had attempted to register as an opposition political
party and were arrested, some of whom are still incarcerated, as well
as the tests of rocket engines that occurred even while the President
was in China, how do we reconcile that with this supposed great reform
that is taking place in China? And then also, the question I would pose
is, The amendment that you are opposing simply says that visas should
not be granted to those who are involved in forcing--compelling--
abortions on women against their will and those who are involved in
persecution of religious believers of various faiths. Do you oppose
denying visas to those individuals who are involved in forced abortions
and religious persecution?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to answer the questions of the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas.
Yes, I oppose a measure which would oppose the granting of visas. The
normal diplomatic and pragmatic efforts of a government-to-government
effort to engage and discuss, to bring to light of day, to continue to
persuade and develop a better sense of values would be truncated and
cut off.
I believe, I say to the Senator, as one who has watched China for
some 35 years now, that this is a country which has been humiliated by
the West in the past. This is a country that has 5,000 years of
dictatorship by one individual, generally an emperor, an emperor who
could cast aside people, who could kill people at will--then
revolutionary war heroes, basically people who were uneducated.
This is the first post-revolutionary war leadership that has had some
Western education, that has some Western understanding. China closed
itself off from the West after the Boxer Rebellion and because of what
happened in the opium trade, never wanting any kind of interaction with
the West.
Now, for the first time, China is open, I believe, to Western values,
to Western ideas. I happen to believe it is to our interest. We didn't
settle the enormous intellectual property and piracy problems by
saying, if you commit a piracy act, you won't have a visa to the United
States. We settled it by sending over delegation after delegation of
officials to let the Chinese Government know what this was all about,
to identify and help identify those factories that were producing
illegal goods, and to follow up and see, in fact, that the Chinese
Government was willing to take action to shut them down. It has worked.
It will be a bumpy road.
[[Page S9346]]
But cutting off visas of officials isn't the way to handle problems,
whether they relate to IPR, whether they relate to technology transfer,
whether they relate to other military endeavors or trade matters, I
believe.
I must say, I believe this is the first time in the last year that
the administration has really made up their mind that what they are
going to do is engage China fully and completely at the top level. I
believe it is having enormous dividends and that we will see in the
years to come a much more open country, a country that has taken steps
to make greater reforms.
You have to realize that to those of us who sit on the west coast,
the Pacific rim is our world of trade. The Pacific rim has by far
exceeded the Atlantic Ocean as the major theater of trade. In my State,
approximately over a third of the jobs depend on trade with Asia. We
want to have positive relations with Asia, positive relations with the
Philippines, with Taiwan, with South Korea, with China, with all of the
ASEAN countries as well. Increasingly, we have an opportunity, we
believe, on the Pacific, to form a Pacific rim community that is
peaceful, where trade can take place, where like values can be shared.
I must tell you, I buy into that dream. I want to see it happen.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, coerced abortion and religious
persecution are two practices that the Chinese Communist Government
denies take place in China.
How, then, would denying visas to Chinese officials in which we have
credible evidence that, in fact, they are doing--how would that impede
the kind of positive relationship that you want to see?
I again reiterate the questions: How do we reconcile the most recent
rounds of arrests of those who tried to form a democracy party in China
when they were detained and incarcerated? And the test of the rocket
engines while the President was in China, how do we reconcile that with
this supposed breeze of freedom that we now have blowing through China?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I don't think it is all going to be smooth and all
going in one direction. I find the arrest of dissidents in the wake of
the President's visit or prior to the President's visit as 100 percent
wrong.
Senator, if there is one thing I have learned about the Chinese, they
can be ham-handed in how they function. They can be their own worst
enemies in how they handle, because they function under a different, I
think, value system in this regard. Sometimes, I believe, it is
overreaction. I have read things, and I sit back and say, why did this
have to happen?
Now, let's talk for a moment about forced abortion. I think it is an
abysmal practice, it is a barbaric practice. China says they do not
countenance and they do not want to permit it. That is the official
government policy. Are there occasions where, in this vast country,
forced abortion is committed, do I believe? I believe there are
instances where forced abortions are, in fact, committed. I also
believe, though, that by pointing this out continually, we will see
some changes.
I think it has to be understood that China still has over 100 million
people way under the poverty line, some living in caves, some living in
the most impoverished circumstances, particularly in western China. It
has to be understood that China is a nation of 1.2 billion people,
growing rapidly.
When I first went to China in 1979, what I was told was, what we have
for one person must be extended to five people. I have seen since that
time the quality of life improving for people. I have seen the easing
of restrictions. I have seen the improvement in the dialog. I have seen
the stress on education. I have seen the opening of the society. I have
to think that is healthy for the society. I think if we engage that
society, if we talk with people on equal levels, if we treat China
without humiliating China but treat China with equality, that we will
see major positive changes in the future.
So I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialog. I respect your
values. I respect what you are trying to do in this regard. I just
happen to believe, based on my knowledge, my understanding, and my
experience with China and the Chinese people, I believe it would be
highly unproductive.
I just wanted an opportunity to come to the floor and have that
opportunity to state my views. I thank the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Last evening I had asked the majority leader just for 5 minutes at
some time during the period when he was propounding the consent
request. I am glad to cooperate with the floor managers on when would
be the most appropriate time to do so, but since we are starting off on
an amendment, I don't want to interrupt the debate on the amendment,
and I am glad to inquire of my friend from Michigan what period of time
he intends to take.
Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator from Massachusetts would like to speak
for up to 5 minutes, the Senator from Michigan would be happy to
propose a unanimous consent agreement by which the Senator from
Massachusetts is yielded 5 minutes to speak, in morning business or
whatever, and then establish that the Senator from Michigan would be
recognized to proceed with the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan desire to make
that request in the form of a unanimous consent request?
Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Massachusetts be permitted to speak for 5 minutes at this time, to be
followed by the Senator from Michigan to then resume discussion of my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
As the Senator knows, the Judiciary Committee, of which we are both
members, is starting hearings at this time as well. I appreciate his
kindness in permitting me to address the Senate at this time.
____________________