[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13638-13646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 689

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the State Department 
authorization and the Sarbanes amendment, numbered 689.
  Mr. HELMS. That is before modification; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not yet been modified.
  Mr. HELMS. Let me inquire, is the modification that I understand has 
been agreed to--do both sides agree to it? I know our side does, but I 
would not want to do anything against the wish of Senator Sarbanes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. 689, As Modified

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send to the desk a modification of 
amendment No. 689 and ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for Mr. 
     Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 689, as modified:
       On page 39, line 11, insert after ``action'' the following: 
     ``that includes a suspension of more than five days''.
       On page 41, line 16, strike ``one year'' and all that 
     follows through the end of line 22 and insert the following: 
     ``two years after the occurrence giving rise to the grievance 
     or, in the case of a grievance with respect to the grievant's 
     rater or reviewer, one year after the date on which the 
     grievant ceased to be subject to rating or review by that 
     person, but in no case less than two years after the 
     occurrence giving rise to the grievance.'.''.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the majority leader desires, and I want 
to accommodate him in this, that this amendment be the rollcalled 
amendment at 5:30.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there be no 
further amendment to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I just discussed this with the Senator. I 
need

[[Page 13639]]

to know, if he will advise me, how long he intends to speak at this 
time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, in response to the Senator from North 
Carolina, I am going to introduce a bill. That will take about 4 or 5 
minutes. Then I want to make a brief statement, perhaps 5 minutes or 7 
minutes or so, on the test ban treaty. My intention would be probably 
no more than 10 or 12 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, if the Senator will conclude in 7 
minutes, I have no objection at all, but I want to keep the time 
available for Senators who will talk on the bill.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 1252 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from North 
Carolina allowing me to speak. We are on a very important piece of 
legislation, and he is managing it. These are all very important 
issues. I wish my colleagues well as they work through their bill in 
the next day or so.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, for the record, I will offer a progress 
report on where we stand on the State Department reauthorization bill.
  Since we began last Friday and over the weekend, the staff has worked 
together with other staff, and as we now stand, there remain just three 
amendments yet to be offered by Senators Wellstone, Feingold, and 
Sarbanes. The Sarbanes amendment is in addition to the one that is 
scheduled for a vote at 5:30 this afternoon. I encourage all three 
Senators to utilize this time so we can put this bill to bed and send 
it over to the House.
  I believe the Senator from Minnesota desires some time.
  Madam President, how much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, 5 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank the chairman 
for recognizing me.
  As the subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over the State 
Department authorization bill, I compliment our chairman for all the 
work he has put into this bill to move it quickly to the floor.
  As he said, I hope we can get these amendments addressed and send 
this bill to the House and hopefully have it signed by the President in 
the very near future.
  I worked closely and diligently with Members on both sides of the 
aisle and the administration to craft legislation which will strengthen 
America's leadership role in the international arena. This package 
enhances the security of our embassies abroad, establishes benchmarks 
for the payment of U.N. arrears, and prioritizes our international 
affairs expenditures.
  I am pleased this authorization bill contains the provisions of a 
bill I introduced, the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism 
Act of 1999. In the aftermath of the embassy bombings in August of 
1998, the State Department Accountability Review Boards chaired by 
Admiral Crowe concluded that we have devoted inadequate resources and 
placed too low a priority on security concerns. Those findings echoed 
those of the Inman Commission, which issued an extensive embassy 
security report that raised these same points 14 years ago.
  We seek to remedy that situation by establishing an Embassy Security 
and Construction Account so funds designated for embassy security will 
not be used for other purposes. In addition to authorizing $600 million 
a year for the next 5 years, this bill provides security requirements 
for U.S. diplomatic facilities and requires the Secretary of State to 
certify that the funds are being used to meet security objectives. It 
also establishes requirements for threat assessments and also emergency 
procedures. Working abroad will never be risk free. But we can take a 
number of measures, like these, to make sure that safety is increased 
for U.S. Government employees overseas. We can also put forward 
requirements to ensure we have an effective emergency response network 
in place to respond to a crisis should one arise.
  I am also pleased that the U.N. Secretary General and the 
administration have endorsed our U.N. reform package which provides 
$819 million in arrears and another $107 million debt relief in 
exchange for reforms. This is a positive step towards shaping a U.N. 
that is a viable organization in the 21st century. Because any 
organization burdened with a bloated bureaucracy and no mechanisms to 
control spending will collapse under its own weight of inefficiency. We 
must reform the United Nations now, and the United States has the 
responsibility to play a major role. If we do nothing, and the United 
Nations collapses under its own weight in a few decades, then we will 
have only ourselves to blame.
  I believe that the U.N. needs the discipline of actual benchmarks 
tied to the arrears to provide the impetus for fundamental reform; 
because given the power of an entrenched U.N. bureaucracy, true reform 
will only occur when there are tangible incentives to change. We have 
seen how difficult it is to streamline our own bureaucracy here in 
Washington. It is even more difficult to streamline an international 
organization where each member is involved in these decisions. But I 
want to underscore that these reforms are achievable. These reforms 
include having Inspectors General in the specialized agencies; 
promoting merit-based employment; and establishing a code of conduct 
for personnel with an anti-nepotism provision. Congress' message is 
simple and it is straightforward. The U.S. can help make the United 
Nations a more effective, more efficient and financially sounder 
organization, but only if the U.N. and other member states, in return, 
are willing to finally become accountable to the American taxpayers.
  That being said, I want to emphasize that the U.N. does excel in 
certain areas. The U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture gives 
financial aid to organizations that help torture survivors, like the 
Center for Victims of Torture in Minnesota. Assisting treatment centers 
for victims of torture is an effective method to lessen the incidence 
of torture by providing irrefutable medical and psychological evidence 
that torture is actually still occurring. These centers also serve a 
strategic purpose of restoring faith in the principles of human rights 
and democracy. That is why I am leading the effort to increase the U.S. 
contribution to $5 million a year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the entire bipartisan package and, 
especially, to understand how difficult it was to arrive at an 
agreement on the arrears. Again, I commend the chairman and also the 
ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee for their diligence 
and also their perseverance in effecting this compromise bill. This 
agreement is in America's best interest, and the best interest of the 
entire international community.
  I compliment the chairman for all his fine work in getting this bill 
to the floor. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 886, the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank Chairman Helms and Senator Biden for their 
leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill.
  Simply put, the bill before us is a piece of national security 
legislation. I know we don't often think about the authorization of the 
State Department in these terms, but the truth is our first line of 
national defense is diplomacy. We in Congress have spent far too little 
of our time and resources on ensuring we have a strong, well-financed 
diplomatic corps. As a consequence we have failed to convince

[[Page 13640]]

the American public of the importance of our foreign policy institution 
in maintaining U.S. national security.
  I recognize that it's much easier to explain to our constituents the 
importance of the Defense Authorization Bill to their safety and 
security. The tangible results of the Defense Authorization Bill--a 
well trained and well-equipped military force--is easily translatable 
into a sense of greater national security. Rather than tanks and 
fighter aircraft, this bill authorizes our diplomats and overseas 
embassies. It authorizes funding for U.S. participation in 
international organizations and foreign language broadcasting. It is 
much less obvious to the American people how these types of activities 
help protect America. Mr. President, they do.
  One of the most important lessons of the post-Communist era is the 
increasing importance of diplomacy. A failure of diplomacy in today's 
world is more likely to result in the need for the use of force. As one 
thinks about the instances in which the United States has been 
compelled to use military force in the last decade--from the Persian 
Gulf to Kosovo--each conflict was preceded by a breakdown of diplomacy, 
or at least an inability of diplomacy to solve the problem. During the 
Cold War, we relied on our military might to deter Soviet aggression. 
Today's threats are more diverse and must be countered, not only with 
military strength, but with strong intelligence and diplomatic 
capabilities.
  I intend to vote for this bill because I believe it is a positive 
step in strengthening our diplomatic capabilities. To begin, this bill 
would fully authorize the President's request for Diplomatic and 
Consular Programs. Just as we strive to have the best-trained and best-
equipped military force in the world, we should do everything in our 
ability to create a diplomatic corps with unparalleled insights into 
how the world works. A key component of this is creating a State 
Department that is responsive, efficient, and capable. In my opinion, 
the integration of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and 
the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) into the State Department has 
improved coordination of U.S. policy and led to greater effectiveness.
  For our diplomats to be successful, they must be reasonably safe. The 
bill contains a five-year authorization for a $3 billion program for 
embassy construction and upgrading U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas. 
The bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania taught us the 
painful lesson that too many of our diplomatic posts remain too 
vulnerable to terrorist attack. We can never guarantee absolute 
security, but this bill will make an immediate downpayment of $600 
million to upgrade security and establish a process to identify those 
facilities most vulnerable and most in need of improvements.
  This bill further promotes U.S. national security by authorizing such 
programs as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the National Endowment 
for Democracy (NED). Each of these are vital tools in our effort to 
promote democracy and provide hope to those people seeking to end 
totalitarian rule. The surest way to foster U.S. national security is 
to extend the benefits of democracy and the rule of law to people in 
places like Iraq and Cuba.
  Perhaps the most important component of S. 886 is the authorization 
to begin repayment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations. It may be 
surprising to many Americans that, due to our failure to meet our 
international financial obligations, the United States is perilously 
close to losing its vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations. 
Any member country with arrears equal to two years of its annual 
assessment automatically loses its right to vote in the General 
Assembly. Our failure to act on this issue by the end of the year will 
put the United States in such illustrious company as Afghanistan, Iraq, 
and Yugoslavia--each of which have also lost their voting rights.
  Some may question the need for U.S. participation in the United 
Nations. The simple fact is the multilateral nature of the U.N. 
improves our ability to confront global challenges. Our participation 
in the United Nations has helped to reduce the threat of Saddam 
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Our participation in the 
United Nations has forced Libya to turn over the suspects from the 
Lockerbie bombing so that they may face justice. Just recently we 
sought support in the United Nations to strengthen our hand in Kosovo 
and provide multilateral support for the ongoing peace implementation 
effort. It's naive to believe that being the largest debtor nation at 
the U.N. will not have an increasingly negative impact on our ability 
to lead. Therefore, it is critically important that we pass this bill 
and set ourselves on the path to paying our debts.
  There is one group of my constituents that consistently understand 
the importance of U.S. foreign policy. Nebraska farmers and food 
processors know maintaining good diplomatic relations is essential to 
maintaining good markets for their products. They also understand that 
international conflict and instability can affect not only their 
prosperity, but their safety as well. I intend to vote for this bill 
because I believe it will increase the safety of the American people by 
strengthening our foreign policy institutions and improving our ability 
to avoid conflict.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, we will be voting, as I understand it, 
on the amendment which I offered on Friday. The chairman at that time 
asked if I could go ahead, and I indicated I could to try to move the 
bill along.
  We have worked over the weekend. Staff has worked on this amendment 
and some modification was made in it which was earlier sent to the desk 
by the chairman of the committee. I thank the chairman and his staff 
and the ranking member and his staff for working on this.
  Actually, the chairman and his people were reasonably trying to get 
at a problem. We have made an adjustment that makes it work. If a 
Foreign Service officer receives a suspension of more than 5 days, that 
fact will stay in his or her file until they next come up for promotion 
and for tenure. There would still be a minimum period when any 
suspension will be in the file, but beyond that period, the minor 
suspensions will drop out of the file. Any one that has been for more 
than 5 days will remain in the file. That is to get at a problem.
  Staff said to me, on occasion we get reports on these people, and 
when we look into it, we discover there was a major suspension but this 
suspension dropped out of the person's record before they came up 
before a promotion board. People believe, in a case of something of 
more than 5 days, which obviously would be of some consequence, that it 
ought to remain in and not be excised from the record. We have made 
that adjustment. I thank the chairman and his people for their 
responsiveness.
  The other amendment I believe was agreeable on Friday. That was on a 
grievance, where we took it back up from 1 year to 2 years. The 
committee had dropped it from 3 to 1 in terms of the period when an 
employee has to file a grievance. One year is tough, particularly if 
that person is overseas, because they do not get home leave except 
every 18 months. We took it back up to 2 years and made some other 
minor changes, and that is acceptable to the committee. I very much 
appreciate that.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. How much time remains before the 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, as I understand it now, with these 
changes the chairman has suggested, the amendment is acceptable to the 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is acceptable to the offerer 
with the changes that have been made.
  Mr. HELMS. This amendment, as modified, preserves one of the key 
Foreign Service reforms in the bill. The

[[Page 13641]]

bill currently requires that any disciplinary action taken against a 
member of the Foreign Service be included in a Foreign Service member's 
file for at least one successful tenure or promotion. Current practice 
requires that such actions remain in a personnel file for only 2 years.
  The current requirement has enabled some Foreign Service members to 
game the system and receive a promotion once the disciplinary action 
has been removed from the file. For example, the committee was recently 
asked to review the promotion of an individual who had failed to attain 
promotion by two review boards while the disciplinary action remained a 
part of his file. After 2 years, when the action was removed from his 
file, he immediately received promotion.
  The Foreign Service, like the military, is intended to be an up or 
out system. In the military, disciplinary actions stay with an 
officer's file for his entire career. The current provision in the bill 
seems to me to be a reasonable reform that would ensure a Foreign 
Service promotion board can make an informed decision. I accept the 
reasonable compromise offered by Senator Sarbanes that ensures this 
requirement applies only to more severe disciplinary actions.
  Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest we vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
689, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from 
Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), 
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baucus
     Chafee
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 689), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam 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. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, we are within striking distance of a final 
disposition of this bill tomorrow. We hope to get an agreement for the 
Feingold and Sarbanes amendment and a vote on final passage tomorrow 
morning.
  In the meantime, after the majority leader has his report to us, we 
will begin debate on the amendment by the distinguished Senator, Mr. 
Feingold.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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. 692

 (Purpose: To limit the percentage of noncompetitively awarded grants 
   made to the core grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will offer today an amendment to make 
a simple reform to the grants process for the National Endowment for 
Democracy, the funding of which is authorized in the State Department 
authorization bill which we are debating.
  I want to make this very clear. I am not here to cut or eliminate NED 
funding by even one penny. This doesn't cut the program at all. Rather, 
my amendment simply requires the money given by the American taxpayers 
to NED each year be distributed fairly and effectively. The amendment, 
therefore, reforms the NED's grant-making procedures, procedures about 
which it can fairly be said, as of today, ``The fix is in.''
  Here is how the grant process at NED works today. Currently, 65 
percent of NED grant money goes automatically to four so-called core 
grantees, and these are the Solidarity Center, an arm of the AFL-CIO; 
the Center for International Private Enterprise or CIPE, an arm of the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and two groups tied to America's major 
political parties, the International Republican Institute and the 
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
  My amendment simply would require that the grant process of NED 
become competitive. The amount of grant funds provided automatically to 
the NED's four core grantees would be reduced incrementally over the 
next 5 years, so all NED grant funds would be awarded competitively on 
the merits by the time we get to the end of that 5-year period.
  I hope we can all agree that more competition among applicants for 
grant funds is a good thing and that it is the fairest way to apportion 
the tax dollars NED distributes to help promote democracy. As it stands 
now, the four grantees are hardly subject to any real scrutiny. That is 
why I say the fix is in for these very well connected organizations.
  The NED is a private, nonprofit organization created by the U.S. 
Government during the cold war in 1983. The idea was a good one. The 
idea was to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through 
nongovernmental efforts. The NED is governed by an independent, 
nonpartisan board of directors and operates with an annual 
congressional appropriation, so strictly speaking, it is not really an 
endowment. NED receives 97 percent of its funding from the taxpayers. 
Until it has significant private sources of funding, it does not make 
any sense to me to guarantee most of its grants to four private groups.
  The NED provides some direct grants, conducts analyses of the theory 
and practice of democratic development worldwide, and serves as a 
clearinghouse for information on that development. The NED makes 
hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, 
Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and 
the former Soviet Union. The Endowment supports projects that promote 
political and

[[Page 13642]]

economic freedom, a strong civil society, independent media, human 
rights and the rule of law.
  There are also programs in the areas of labor, business, and 
political party development which are funded mostly through the four 
grantees, although other applicants are prepared to conduct programs in 
each of these areas.
  Obviously, I believe in the value of democracy and the imperative of 
the United States to support democratic development, human rights, and 
the rule of law abroad. So I do not take lightly at all the admirable 
aims of the National Endowment for Democracy and do believe these goals 
are in the national interest of the United States.
  Nevertheless, I continue to have concerns about this bizarre 
structure of the endowment ``family.'' As I mentioned, more than 50 
percent of the NED's budget, and some 65 percent of the grants it 
makes, goes to these so-called core grantees--NDI, IRI, CIPE and the 
Solidarity Center.
  Why do these core grantees get that funding year after year? Because 
at NED's inception, they had the political clout to get permanently 
``wired in.'' Whatever the goals of the originators of this strange 
arrangement, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the core 
groups necessarily offer programs of such superior quality that they 
should get this annual bonanza while other independent organizations 
must vie for funding from the NED's small remaining discretionary fund.
  Sure--I am quick to say this--the core grantees have conducted some 
excellent programs and many of them certainly serve important U.S. 
national interests. I am sure they deserve to get some funding. But why 
is it they are automatically given 65 percent of grant funds? I have to 
believe there are other organizations out there that can do the job 
better on some projects, but they are not even allowed to compete for 
this majority of the money.
  In fact, I have the list of some 250 organizations that have 
satisfied those individuals who review the remaining amounts of funds 
to the point where these organizations have been granted funds.
  I must say in fairness, considerable progress has been made over the 
years in addressing many of the most pressing concerns about the 
selection and monitoring of NED grants. As the result of several 
studies conducted by the GAO, the Endowment has addressed many issues 
and has tightened up its project selection and performance monitoring 
procedures. I certainly recognize that the NED has made a little bit of 
progress in reducing the percentage of its grants that are slated for 
these four grantees. It used to be as high as 80 percent of the total 
NED budget.
  The NED has seen its funding attacked in this Chamber in recent 
years, but each time the Senate has made a clear and sometimes 
overwhelming decision to preserve that funding. I understand that an 
appropriations bill which was filed last week zeros out funding for the 
NED, but I am absolutely confident those funds will be restored because 
there is no other federally funded organization in America that is, 
frankly, better connected on Capitol Hill than the National Endowment 
for Democracy.
  Today, I am certainly being realistic and trying to be positive and 
helpful and trying to improve the program. I am not attempting to shut 
down the NED. Let me repeat, my amendment does not seek to kill the 
National Endowment for Democracy, nor does it cut the program funding 
even by one dime. Rather, I seek to reform the strange and unique 
grantmaking structure that has evolved at NED.
  Let me describe this amendment one more time. This chart shows, 
again, the situation before our amendment and under current law. The 
distribution, the very small portion in green is available to everybody 
else after these four grantees are guaranteed 65 percent of the grant 
money. My amendment will decrease the amount in blue gradually over 5 
years by a small amount each year to 52 percent in fiscal year 2001, 39 
percent in fiscal year 2002, so on until 2004 when there would be no 
noncompetitive funds made available and the funds would go to the 
applicants who offer the best proposals. A novel idea: All the money 
goes to the best applicants. That is a pretty good use of taxpayers' 
dollars, in my view.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator be willing to send his amendment to the 
desk and count the time he has used against it?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer the 
amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. I certainly anticipated the 
time I used would go against my time.
  Mr. HELMS. I am not trying to direct the Senator. I just want the 
clock to start running.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time I have 
already consumed be counted against my time that I was allotted under 
the agreement.
  Mr. HELMS. That sounds fair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the chairman.
  I will conclude my remarks, and at the conclusion of those remarks, I 
will, in fact, send the amendment to the desk. This does not 
necessarily mean any of the four core grantees will have to cut their 
budgets, but it will mean they will have to actually make their case to 
NED that their proposals are the best use of taxpayers' dollars. As it 
now stands, these four grantees know the fix is in, so there is less 
incentive to make sure every single program is as efficient and well 
planned as it possibly can be.
  My amendment will phase out this fix over a 5-year period and compel 
each of the four grantees to work a little harder to earn their grants, 
as hard as everybody else, so they can be in this big green pie of the 
best applicants, not just the guaranteed applicants.
  Again, this is not an amendment to kill or even cut funding for the 
NED. It is an amendment to use old-fashioned American competition to 
ensure that the best use of taxpayers' dollars in the funding of 
democracy programs happens abroad. My colleagues who believe in 
fairness and competition and the efficient use of the taxpayers' money 
should vote aye.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of 250 organizations which 
received NED funds in calendar year 1998 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Organizations that Received NED Discretionary Grants in Calendar Year 
                                  1998

     Afghanistan Information Center
     Afghanistan Study Center
     African Centre for Democratic Governance
     African Leadership Forum
     Al-Urdun Al-Jadid Research Center
     Albanian Center for Human Rights
     American Assistance for Cambodia
     American Federal of Teachers Educational Foundation
     American Foreign Policy Council
     Andean Commission of Jurists
     Arab Media Institute
     Asia Plus News Agency
     Assistance Center for Nonprofit Organizations
     Associates to Develop Democratic Burma
     Association for Civic Education
     Association for Independent Electronic Media
     Association in Support of Local Democracy
     Association of Liberian Professional Organizations
     Association of Vietnamese Overseas
     Association of Women with University Education
     Associaton of Young Leaders
     Azerbaijan Foundation for the Development of Democracy
     Balkan Forum Civil Association
     Belapan Information Agency
     Belgrade Center for Human Rights
     BETA News Agency
     Bureau d'Etudes, de Rechereche et de Consulting International
     Burma Information Group
     Burma Lawyers' Council
     Burmese Women's Union
     Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
     Cambodian Human Rights Task Force
     Campaign for Democracy
     Center for a Free Cuba
     Center for Anti-War Action
     Center for Civil Education Poland-Belarus
     Center for Cooperation-Livno
     Center for Free Speech
     Center for Justice and International Law
     Center for Law Enforcement Education

[[Page 13643]]

     Center for Law and Human Rights
     Center for Modern China
     Center for Palestinian Research and Studies
     Center for Research and Popular Education
     Center for Strategic and International Studies
     Center for the Services of Popular Action
     Center of Social Projecting ``Vozrozhdeniye''
     Centre Chretien pour le Developpement des Paysans en Milieu 
         Rural
     Centre des Droits de l'Homme et du Droit Humanitaire
     Chad Non-Violence
     Channels Television
     Children of Chernobyl Gomel NGO Resource Center
     China News Digest International
     Chinese VIP Reference
     Citizen's Movement for Democracy
     Citizen's Presence
     Civic Association Justice First
     Civil Association for Social Development--New Dawn
     Civil Liberties Organization
     Collectif d'Actions pour le Developpement des Droits de 
         l'Homme
     Colombian Commission of Jurists
     Comite d'Action pour les Droits des L'Enfant et de la Femme
     Committee for the Defense of Human Rights
     Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Tartarstan
     Coordinating Child Center for International Development of 
         Tajikistan
     Council for the Defense of Human Rights and Freedoms
     Cuban Committee for Human Rights
     CubaNet
     Danas (Today)
     Democracy Center Foundation
     Democratic Association of Moroccan Women
     Democratic China
     Democratic Voice of Burma
     Development through Education Fund
     Dialogue Turkmen Youth Leadership Center
     Disadente Universal de Puerto Rico
     Dr. Ismail Juma'le Human Rights Organization
     Educational Choices Heightened Opportunity
     Educational Society of Malpolska
     Egyptian Center for Women's Rights
     Egyptian Organization for Human Rights
     Ethiopian Human Rights Council
     European Center for Common Ground
     Express Chronicle
     Femmes et Enfants pour les Droits de l'Homme
     Foundation for China in the 21st Century
     Foundation for Defense of Human Rights
     Foundation for Democracy in Zimbabwe
     Foundation for Education for Democracy
     Foundation for Human Rights Institute
     Free Iraq Foundation
     Freedom Channel
     Fund for Peace
     Gender Equity: Citizenship, Work and Family
     Glastnost Defense Foundation
     Glastnost Public Foundation
     Gomel Civic Initiatives Association
     Grand Vision pour la Defense des Droits de l'Homme
     Group d'Etudes et de Recherche sur la Democratie et le 
         Developpement Economique et Sociale
     Group for Democratic Development
     Groupe Justice et Liberation
     Helsinki Citizens Assembly--Tuzla
     Helsinki Citizens Assembly--Banja Luka
     Helsinki Citizens Assembly--Turkey
     Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Republika Srpska
     Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia
     Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor
     Human Rights Africa
     Human Rights in China
     Human Rights Documentation Unit
     Human Rights Foundation of Monland
     Human Rights Foundation for Civil Society
     Human Rights Monitor
     Human Rights Publishers
     Humanitarian Law Center
     HUNDEE
     Huri-Laws
     Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development
     Ilim Educational Complex
     Information and Research Centre for Civic Education
     Information Bureau of the Human Rights Movement in Cuba
     Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe
     Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe/Warsaw
     Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Kyungnam University
     Institute for Regional Studies
     Institute for Southeastern Studies
     Institute for Sustainable Development Education
     Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
     Institute of Political and Strategic Studies
     International Campaign for Tibet
     International Crisis Group
     International Forum for Islamic Dialogue
     International Human Rights Law Group
     Jan Hus Educational Foundation
     Karen Information Center
     KARTA (Charter) Center Foundation
     Kaunas Municipal Training Center
     Kharkiv's Center for Women's Studies
     Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
     Khmer Students Association
     Koha Ditore
     Krygyz Committee for Human Rights
     Lahu National Development Organization
     Laogai Research Foundation
     Lawyers' Association for the Defense of Human Rights
     League of Democratic Women
     Lebanese Foundation for Permanent Civil Peace
     Leagal Defense Institute
     Les Amis de Nelson Mandela pour la Defense des Droits de 
         l'Homme
     Liberal Women's Brain Pool
     Liberian Human Rights Chapter
     Ligue des Electeurs
     Liuboslavkii Charitable Foundation for the Defense of Human 
         Rights
     Media Rights Agenda
     ``Meeting of Cuban Culture'' Magazine
     Mexican Commission for the Defense and Protection of Human 
         Rights
     Milan Simecka Foundation
     Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights
     Moscow Helsinki Group
     Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People
     Museum of Political Repression and Totalitarianism
     Mutawinat Benevolent Company
     Mwelekeo wa NGO
     Myrna Mack Foundation
     Nadacia Pre Obciansku Spolocnost
     National Coalition for Democracy
     National Democratic Coalition
     National Health and Education Committee
     National Human Rights Monitor, Inc.
     National League for Free and Fair Elections
     Nework for Communal Justice and Conflict Mediation
     Network Recherche Action
     The New Era Journal
     Niger Delta Human Rights and Environmental Rescue 
         Organisation
     Nizhnii Tagil Human Rights Library
     Nonviolence International
     NTV Zetel
     Obrumankoma, Odapagyan and Oson Traditionals
     Organization of Indigenous Women of the Peruvian Amazon
     Organization to Improve the Quality of Life
     Panorama
     Panorama Center for the Dissemination of Alternative 
         Information
     Partners for Democratic Change
     Peace and Development Committee
     People in Need Foundation
     People's Action for Free and Fair Elections
     Permanent Committee of the Civil Institute
     Philanthropic Amlieh Association
     Polish-Czech-Slovak Solidarity Foundation
     Presov Civic Foundation
     Press and Society Institute
     Press Freedom Guardian
     Press Union of Liberia
     Princeton China Initiative
     Pro Democracy Association
     Prologues
     Promotion de la Femme Rurale
     Public Research Center
     Radio Anfani
     Radio Drina
     Radio Zid
     Rally for Youth Action
     ``Ratusha'' Civic Association
     Region Association
     Rene Moawad Foundation
     Rural Educational Services
     Russian Association for Civic Education
     Ryazan Regional Branch of the Memorial Society
     Sakharov Foundation
     Saratov Legal Reform Project
     Search for Common Ground
     Sharq Information and Analysis Center
     Sisterhood is Global Institute
     Smoloskyp
     Snezhinsk Human Rights Defense Group
     Spiral Foundation
     STINA News Agency
     Strategic Empowerment and Mediation Agency
     Strategy Center
     Studio ``N''
     Sudan Human Rights Association
     Sutizahnik
     Synergy
     Tashkent Public Education Center
     Tibet Fund
     Tibet Times
     Tibetan Youth Congress
     Tsentral'naya Aziya
     Tulane University
     Tuzla Citizens Forum
     Uchitel'skaia gazeta
     Ukrainian-American Bureau for Human Rights
     Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research
     Ukrainian Congress Committee of America
     Ukrainian Memorial Society
     Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
     Up with Citizenship Association
     Urals Foundation for Social Innovation
     Vijesti
     Vitebsk Foundation for Democratic Reforms
     Voice of the Handicapped for Human Rights
     Voice of the Voiceless
     Vreme
     Westbourne Publishers, t/a Dar al-Saqi
     Women for Democracy and Leadership
     Women Living under Muslim Law
     Women in Nigeria--Kaduna
     Women's Affairs Technical Committee
     Women's Union in Jordan
     World Organization Against Torture USA
     Yeni Nesil Journalists Association
     Youth Alternative

[[Page 13644]]

     Youth Center for Human Rights and Legal Culture
     Youth EcoCenter Young Leaders School
     Youth Human Rights Group

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  I call up amendment No. 692 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 692.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 13, after line 10, add the following new section:

     SEC. 106. LIMITATIONS ON NONCOMPETITIVELY AWARDED NED GRANTS.

       (a) Limitations.--Of the total amount of grants made by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy in each of the following 
     fiscal years, not more than the following percentage for each 
     such fiscal year shall be grants that are awarded on a 
     noncompetitive basis to the core grantees of the National 
     Endowment for Democracy:
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, 52 percent.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, 39 percent.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, 36 percent.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, 13 percent.
       (5) For fiscal year 2004, zero percent.
       (b) Core Grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``core grantees of the 
     National Endowment for Democracy'' means the following:
       (1) The International Republican Institute (IRI).
       (2) The National Democratic Institute (NDI).
       (3) The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).
       (4) The American Center for International Solidarity (also 
     known as the ``Solidarity Center'').

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 44 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to oppose the amendment of the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin. He clearly is a strong proponent and advocate of democracy 
and has stimulated discussion on these issues as a valued member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee. The National Endowment for Democracy which 
was founded in 1983 included the so-called four ``core'' groups from 
the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Organized Labor, and the 
Chamber of Commerce.
  That foundation was deliberate. It was not a question of a strange 
arrangement in which four groups in Washington sequestered the funds 
for their own benefit. Very clearly, President Reagan and a bipartisan 
majority of the Congress found that the checks and balances inherent in 
that debate were very important in making certain that the National 
Endowment for Democracy was not politicized.
  Let me mention that to have competition in which as many as 250 
groups interested in democracy compete for money, almost guarantees a 
substantial bureaucracy to vet all of the points of view and 
applications. Furthermore, under the worst of circumstances, it does 
not necessarily bring about a strong bipartisan scrutiny of each 
other's proposals, quite apart from the scrutiny that organized labor 
might get from the Chamber of Commerce and vice versa. In fact, the 
system has worked remarkably well.
  I have served as a member of the Board of the National Endowment for 
Democracy during the past 8 years. I have witnessed the process in 
which the Board--which is not divorced from the debate in Washington--
thinks through those areas of the world that need specific emphasis.
  Each of the four core groups is charged with finding proposals and 
finding specific groups, often in countries that are emerging 
democracies, to bring forward ways in which democracy might be 
enhanced. Sometimes it is under very arduous and dangerous 
circumstances. It is only after the core groups make their proposals, 
having reviewed them thoroughly, that the staff of the National 
Endowment for Democracy scrutinize them, ask for amendments, suggest 
changes, delays or rejection.
  Specific members of the Board who have particular expertise in 
various areas of the world spend a great deal of time pro bono taking a 
very careful look at those proposals. But finally, each one of us, as 
Board members, must pass on each and every single one of these grant 
applications.
  On occasion we reject a fair number during a meeting, quite apart 
from whether a quota of grants has been allocated specifically to the 
four. Each of the four ``cores'' has the ability and the talents to 
bring forward remarkable proposals for the advancement of democracy. 
That has been occurring for the past 16 years.
  The Foreign Relations committee has not held hearings on this 
proposal. It comes literally out of the blue. It may have some merit 
for another organization at another time, but for this organization the 
genius was in its initial inception--an opportunity to bring forward 
proposals that were not coming from the U.S. Government, from the State 
Department, from the White House, or the National Security Council.
  It brought forward proposals from well-defined institutions in our 
society that are broadly based--members of the Democratic and 
Republican parties, often elected officials, responsible to their 
constituents, who are well aware of political currents in the country, 
and the institutions that characterize our national Chamber of Commerce 
and the AFL-CIO.
  As a matter of fact, the Solidarity movement found resonance with the 
AFL-CIO. It was the labor movement of our country that brought forward 
one of the most significant sets of proposals and advocacy.
  It is a fact that at the recent 50th anniversary NATO celebration, 
one of the great honors paid in this city was by the National Endowment 
for Democracy to Lech Walesa. In many ways, Lech Walesa's leadership, 
courageous as it was at a turning point in history, was a hallmark of 
the work of the National Endowment. The checks and balances were at 
work, because other groups took a look at the labor/Solidarity 
situation in Poland and wondered whether it was appropriate for the 
United States Government to be appropriating funds that led to the 
change of government in that country. On balance, our Government 
appropriated those funds but the National Endowment did make the 
decisions. They were outside the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, 
outside the politicization that occurs when one party or another gains 
dominance and a particular type of preferential structure.
  I make these points because I believe this is an arrangement that 
works well. If the wagon isn't broke, we should not try to fix it. The 
situation is clearly one that does not require any fixing.
  There may be institutions in our society that wish we had established 
a different sort of endowment. I suspect that if Members are prepared 
to vote for this amendment, it will be a very different National 
Endowment for Democracy. But I caution Members about the dangers of 
making these changes. Therefore, I ask for careful consideration by 
Members. I ask, in fact, consideration of the remarkable work that is 
now being done by the National Endowment for Democracy and the 16 years 
of very solid achievement by many great Americans who were outside of 
our Government, but who participated in boosting democracy through this 
vehicle.
  I ask, therefore, for the defeat of the Feingold amendment. I am 
hopeful that as the votes are counted tomorrow, the National Endowment 
will receive a vote of endorsement.

[[Page 13645]]

  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 44 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require at 
this point.
  Let me first say how much regard I have for the Senator from Indiana 
and enormous respect for his role on the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, his demeanor, and his knowledge. It is a pleasure to work 
with him. We disagree on this one.
  The Senator from Indiana suggests that this point about the National 
Endowment for Democracy comes from out of the blue. I have been here 
long enough to know that year after year the former Senator from 
Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, made several attempts to eliminate the program 
or change the program. It has been a regular subject of scrutiny in 
this body, as it should be. I think to suggest that it is a surprise 
that there would be some oversight of NED is not quite accurate.
  What the Senator from Indiana is indicating, of course, is the 
political parties and business and labor are at the heart of a 
pluralistic democratic society, that they are the fundamental concepts 
of American political life. I agree with him. I think it is important 
that as we endeavor to encourage democratization around the world that 
we try to include all of these elements of our democracy. But I do not 
think it should be primarily limited or dominantly limited to these 
four core grantees.
  The Senator from Indiana knows far better than I do the origins of 
the program. I appreciate his comments about what the thinking was in 
the beginning, how these groups got together, and how the structure was 
crucial for the program to begin. I do not dispute that. I am sure 
there is some validity.
  But I think after some 15 years, these groups and these organizations 
have had time enough to develop their programs so they are ready to fly 
on their own, that they are ready to compete against other applicants 
for the funding in a free and fair manner.
  The fact that the NED's four core grantees are guaranteed to receive 
a set amount of funds every year seems to me fundamentally unfair and 
is a contradiction of our democratic principles, especially when you 
are talking about guaranteeing private groups taxpayer dollars, which 
is exactly what this does. Every group that conducts democracy programs 
should have an equal opportunity to pursue Federal funding for its 
programs, not just the ones that are so powerfully and politically 
connected. These four well-connected groups are not the only people in 
America that know something about political parties or business or 
labor, but it is only these groups that are guaranteed 65 percent of 
the grant money from this program. That is almost entirely taxpayers' 
dollars. To me, a much more appropriate system would be a competitive 
one.
  As I understand it, since the Senator fairly raises the concern about 
whether the original understanding between these groups would be 
preserved, I am told that the board itself has representatives of both 
of the major political parties, as well as of business and labor, and 
that they are the ones that would be making these decisions.
  The Senator from Indiana indicates that this is a situation where 
something isn't broke so do not fix it. The fact is, in recent years a 
number of suggestions have been made about ways to help fix the 
program. There have been some problems. Some of these problems have 
been fixed. What I am trying to do here is continue the process of 
fixing it, of improving it.
  As I indicated earlier, some 80 percent of this money was once tied 
up only for these four groups. Now it is lower, but it still represents 
65 percent of available grant money. What I am saying is, let us fix 
it, improve it, over the next 5 years, phasing this down so each year 
this gets a little smaller. By the time we get to the end of that 5-
year period, we have all the money based on a fair competition and 
still have a board that has representatives of both political parties 
and of business and labor so there is no real possibility of unfairness 
or partisanship in this regard.
  All of this is offered in the spirit of trying to further improve the 
program, acknowledging its great worth, acknowledging the many good 
things that are done. Let's just do a little better job of making sure 
our taxpayers' dollars are spent in a manner that involves the best 
interests and the best applicants getting the money.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 23 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on 
the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the State 
Department authorization bill. Specifically, I would like to commend 
Chairman Helms for the inclusion of a number of provisions dealing with 
China. These provisions closely mirror legislation that I introduced 
last year and earlier this year as Senate bill 89.
  Section 701 of this act contains a number of findings on the human 
rights situation in China from the State Department's Annual Report on 
human rights practices. The government of the People's Republic of 
China continues to commit widespread and egregious abuses of 
internationally recognized human rights. Its prisons are overflowing 
with tortured and mistreated citizens who would dare to practice their 
faiths or exercise a political voice. Religious persecution, crackdowns 
on political dissent, restrictions on the press, forced labor, forced 
abortions, repression of people in Tibet and Xinjiang province are, 
unfortunately, still a part of daily life in China.
  In order to shed light on the dark practices of the Chinese 
government, section 702 of this bill earmarks $2.2 million of money 
authorized for the Department of State for additional personnel in U.S. 
embassies and consulates for each of FY2000 and FY2001 to monitor 
political and economic conditions, particularly human rights. These new 
personnel, along with the creation of a prison information registry for 
the People's Republic of China in section 703, will make it all the 
more difficult for the Chinese government to deny that these abuses 
persist. With more centralized and accessible information, we will be 
able to better advocate for the release of these prisoners of 
conscience or faith.
  It is also important that the people of China have access to the 
truth. The U.S. may have accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in 
Belgrade, but it was no accident that the people did not hear President 
Clinton's repeated apologies. Section 502 of this bill reauthorizes 
Radio Free Asia, bringing objective reporting to the people of China.
  Section 705 strongly condemns the practice of organ harvesting, where 
organs from executed prisoners are sold on the black market or where 
prisoners are executed for their organs. According to our own State 
Department, ``In recent years, credible reports have alleged that 
organs from some executed prisoners were removed, sold, and 
transplanted. Officials have confirmed that executed prisoners are 
among the sources of organs for transplant but maintain that consent is 
required from prisoners or their relatives before organs are removed * 
* * there were credible reports that patients from Taiwan had undergone 
organ transplant operations on the mainland, using organs removed from 
executed criminals.'' Where and when organ harvesting is taking place 
in China, it must be stopped.
  Equally horrific is the practice of forcing women to undergo forced 
abortions or forced sterilization under the Chinese government's 
population control policies. Women who are pregnant with a second child 
find themselves and their relatives harassed, fined, and

[[Page 13646]]

sometimes even have their homes destroyed until they are ultimately 
forced to undergo an abortion, even in the latest stages of pregnancy. 
Last June, the House International Relations Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights heard testimony of these 
practices from Gao Xiao Duan, a former administrator of forced 
abortion, as well as Zhou Shiu Yon, a victim of these policies. I 
believe that it is only appropriate that Congress act in response to 
this horrid devaluation of human life. Section 721 restricts visas for 
any foreign national whom the Secretary of State finds to have been 
directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of population 
control policies involving forced abortion or forced sterilization. 
There is no reason why we should welcome into our country those 
individuals who have no respect for human life.
  United States-China relations are strained at this time. Amidst the 
whirlwind of controversy, including espionage, campaign donations, the 
accidental embassy bombing, and a near $60 billion trade deficit, there 
are some who would argue that we should be quiet about human rights in 
order to preserve the relationship. But I would argue that human rights 
must not be swept off our agenda. The Chinese government would like 
nothing more than for us to censor ourselves. I believe that this 
legislation will help to ensure that human rights and the defense of 
internationally recognized standards are kept intact.
  Mr. President, there are two additional provisions it this 
legislation. Section 704 requires the Secretary of State to report 
within 180 days on the feasibility and utility of establishing an 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Asia, modeled after the 
OSCE. Section 722 requires semiannual reports to Congress on the status 
of U.S. efforts to support the membership of Taiwan in international 
organizations that do not require statehood, and the appropriate level 
of participation in international organizations that do require 
statehood for full membership. Taiwan's entry into international 
organizations has been held hostage to China's wishes for too long. In 
many instances, such as World Trade Organization membership, Taiwan is 
more qualified to join than China, yet simply because of China's 
sensitivities, it has been prevented from joining.
  In the long run, we must recognize that the Chinese government is a 
totalitarian regime. This dictatorship does not represent the people of 
China, rather it abuses them in any way necessary to maintain its 
power. Similarly, this regime will use any necessary means to expand 
its power in Asia. If we are to effectively manage these aims, we will 
need the help of our neglected allies in the region, namely Japan, 
Taiwan, and South Korea.
  We cannot recover stolen information, but we must prevent future 
theft through increased security at our national labs and other 
facilities, more stringent background checks, controls on technology 
transfers, and a Justice Department that does not hinder its own FBI's 
investigations. We cannot afford to give the Chinese government the 
means to fulfill its military aims.
  We should, however, give the people of China the means to build their 
own democracy. Increased funding for Radio Free Asia, the Voice of 
America, democracy building programs, and rule of law initiatives are 
vital because they represent an engagement with the people of China 
rather than the regime at the top. We must recognize the limits to 
engaging an insecure, transient government that is on the wrong side of 
history.
  Finally, Mr. President, industry must do its part and aggressively 
advocate human rights. Americans doing business in China must be active 
advocates for human rights, to the Beijing government and to the 
people. They must not be complicit in slave labor or other human rights 
violations. The simple fact is that China desperately wants American 
trade and American business. U.S. companies must use this leverage to 
advance more than profits.
  China is not yet our enemy, but neither is it our friend. Our China-
centered foreign policy must be replaced with a regional policy. We 
must break off this Administration's obsession with trying to acede to 
Beijing's every demand. Such a policy can only strengthen a regime that 
will seek to extinguish the flames of democracy abroad as it has done 
so effectively at home.

                          ____________________