Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 217, which calls upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to release all prisoners of conscience, to end its persecution of people of faith, and to abide by internationally accepted human rights standards. This resolution is cosponsored by Senators Lott, Nickles, Mack, Coverdell, Collins, Feingold, Durbin, Leahy, Snowe, Gorton, and Wellstone. Mr. President, the crackdown in China is escalating. The most immediate target is Falun Gong--a movement which combines traditional breathing exercises with elements of Buddhism, Taoism and the beliefs of its founder. Since April, when more than 10,000 practitioners of Falun Gong shocked the Chinese government by gathering in front of the leadership compound in Beijing, the Chinese government has tried to systematically eradicate the practice. The Beijing regime rounded up thousands of practitioners, arrested its leaders, ransacked homes, confiscated and burned Falun Gong materials, and forced adherents to renounce their beliefs. The government then banned the practice of Falun Gong in July and officially labeled it a cult as part of a nationwide propaganda campaign to discredit practitioners. But this was not enough. On October 30, 1999, in a perverse maneuver, the National People's Congress raised the stakes of persecution by adopting a new law banning and criminalizing groups deemed by the Chinese government to be cults-- perverse because this is the Chinese government's way of legitimizing their abuses of human rights--perverse because the law is being applied retroactively. Protestors of this law faced police who beat, kicked, and yanked the hair of several elderly women protestors. Practitioners, mostly middle- aged or senior citizens, sitting or standing in silent meditation were dragged away from Tiananmen square. But they remained peaceful. The Chinese government has wasted no time in arresting Falun Gong leaders and charging them under this law. As of November 9, 1999, according to Chinese officials, 111 people had been formally arrested on charges ranging from disrupting state security to stealing state secrets. Many more have been detained and sent to re-education programs or labor camps. Now, at least four leaders have been convicted, with sentences ranging from two to twelve years. Many more will be convicted. The truth of the matter is that the Chinese government is insecure and cannot tolerate any group that is outside of its control. That is why it is engaged in this crackdown. That is why it sentenced four pro- democracy activists to jail terms ranging from four to 11 years. That is why it continues to persecute people of faith. In August, police detained a 65-year-old bishop of China's underground Roman Catholic Church in Hebei province and convicted seven lay members of the underground Catholic church in Jiangxi province. In October, in Guangzhou, some 200 police officers demolished a shelter used by House Church Christians. They detained, brutalized, and warned five House Church Christians against preaching or practicing their faith. I am extremely concerned about the well being of Christians who are suffering in detention for their faith, including Pastor Li Dexian, one of the Guangzhou House Church members, Zhang Ronglian from Henan, and Zheng Xinqi from Anhui. These incidents re simply anecdotal. They reflect a greater pattern of ongoing religious persecution. Mr. President, at the same time that the Chinese government is cracking down on its own citizens, at the same time it is authorizing harsher punishments for believing outside of government control, the Beijing regime is flouting international norms, and even tossing aside its own constitution, which supposedly provides for the freedom of religious belief and the freedom not to believe. The freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, expression, and assembly are not ``western values'' or ``American values'' that we are trying to impose on China. These values have been embraced by the international community. And it is up to the international community to uphold them when they are being trampled--to speak out in the face of injustice. This resolution is part of our responsibility. With this resolution, we urge the Chinese government to step back into the realm of international standards, to end its crackdown, and to release its prisoners of conscience. We urge the Chinese government to end its ``campaign for stability,'' which has only caused far greater instability. Mr. President, I expect that this resolution will be adopted. I also expect that the Clinton Administration will not offer silence as a hidden concession for the WTO agreement signed with China but will instead use this statement by the Senate to strengthen its hand in advocating an end to persecution in China.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Wellstone's amendment. I know that my friend and colleague from Minnesota is proposing this amendment with the welfare of America's family farmer in mind. I, too, think of America's family farmer, but I have concerns that placing a moratorium on agribusiness mergers and acquisitions now may do more harm in my State than good. This is an important issue and I commend Senator Hatch's willingness to hold hearings on this matter in the Antitrust Subcommittee. We need to have the time to carefully consider how agribusiness mergers and acquisitions affect America's producers. I am very proud of the farmers in my State. Arkansas ranks in the top 10 rice, chicken, catfish, turkey, cotton, sorghum, eggs, and soybean producing States in America. Despite their productivity, there are fewer this season than last season. An ailing national agriculture economy has pushed many farmers to the breaking point. I visited 27 counties in Arkansas over the August recess and saw the strain on their faces and heard the frustration in their voices. Their deep concern for the future of farming comes from knowing that agriculture is the lifeblood of my State's economy. Arkansas is dominated by small farms and cooperatives, but Arkansas is also home to national processors like Tyson Foods. I do not believe that we should trade the interests of one for another. Instead, we must develop a balanced policy that will help small farmers and not penalize those companies which are helping drive my State's agriculture recovery. In many communities, these cooperatives and agribusinesses are the foundation of the farm economy in that area. Right now, many of those communities are still hurting. That is why I am more concerned about the overall survivability of the cooperatives and agribusinesses in Arkansas than the possibility that some of them may someday decide to merge with a larger entity. In reality, if an agribusiness in Arkansas is struggling to stay alive, and Senator Wellstone's moratorium on agribusiness mergers and acquisitions is imposed, that greatly limits an ailing business' ability to sell to survive. In other words, if the owners of an agribusiness have only two choices to survive--either sell or declare bankruptcy--and the option to sell is denied, then their going out of business doesn't help anyone. While America's farmers are slowly recovering from low commodity prices, high production costs and poor trade, I believe now is not the time to destabilize agribusinesses in Arkansas. On the other hand, I know that producers in many farm states have serious concerns about the impact larger agribusinesses, especially the meat processing industry, have on their ability to recover from poor prices. Let me be clear, I do not advocate inaction, but I am concerned that producers and processors in my state, both large and small, may be unintentionally harmed by the Wellstone amendment. Many meat processing agribusinesses in Arkansas provide stability for producers and have good working relationships with them. Because most of their producers work under contract, both the agribusinesses and producers suffer when prices are low. Tyson Foods, known for their poultry processing, is involved in raising hogs. As the price for hogs began to fall, Tyson felt the financial strain of production without the ability to process. In the mind of Tyson's contract pork producers, the company's situation had reached a critical level when they received letters telling them that sustained low hog prices were forcing Tyson to only offer 30-day contracts. Producers were left wondering how they would pay off debt and survive if Tyson could not renew their contracts. Recently, Smithfield announced that it will be taking over Tyson's Pork Group, effectively stabilizing the future of Tyson's contract producers. Unlike Tyson who only raised hogs, Smithfield has the capacity to both raise and process their livestock. Clearly, if Senator Wellstone's moratorium on mergers and acquisitions was in pace at the time of the Smithfield acquistion of Tyson's Pork Group, contract producers would still be living under a cloud of uncertainty in an ailing hog market. With that in mind, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Wellstone amendment so that Senator Hatch may be afforded the time to thoroughly address the impact agribusiness mergers and acquisitions are having on the American family farmer.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate amendment 2771 to S. 625 because it will provide additional federal resources to combat the dramatic increase in the production, use and distribution of methamphetamine which I believe must be stopped. Methamphetamine is particularly insidious because it is highly addictive, cheap, easy to produce and distribute, popular with youth, and tends to make its users paranoid and violent. Thus, crimes like burglaries, theft, shoplifting, robberies, and murder can be traced to methamphetamine use. In fact, the prosecuting attorney of my home county, Benton County, Arkansas, estimates that 70% of the felony court docket is directly or indirectly related to methamphetamine. Another, often-forgotten but tragic problem which accompanies methamphetamine use is child abuse. Children of methamphetamine users have specific problems associated with their parents' drug addictions: medical, environmental, and educational neglect; malnutrition; and sometimes physical abuse. According to child welfare workers, parents who use meth are more likely to physically abuse their children than parents who use other drugs. Methamphetamine is a serious and growing problem in my home state of Arkansas because the state of Arkansas possesses many of the characteristics which allow drug trafficking to flourish: it is sparsely populated with remote areas; it suffers from a high rate of poverty and joblessness and a low per capita income; it has a large population of illegal immigrants; and it has two major interstate highways which facilitate the transportation of drugs to Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Memphis, St. Louis, and throughout the rest of the nation. The rapid increase and magnitude of the methamphetamine problem is illustrated in my home state's experience. In 1995, the Arkansas State Police seized 24 methamphetamine labs; in 1996, the number of labs seized more than tripled to 95, then more than tripled again to 242 in 1997, and doubled again to 434 labs in 1998. Recently, the DEA identified Arkansas as one of the top three methamphetamine-producing states in the nation, based on per-capita figures. The growth of the methamphetamine problem in my home state is also seen by the increase in the amount spent to clean up clandestine lab sites, which is one of the most dangerous activities law enforcement officers must undertake. In 1998, $567,000 was spent on clandestine lab cleanups associated with federal agencies in Arkansas whereas five years before, only $71,000 was expended. I support this amendment because it provides an additional $15 million a year to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to facilitate the hiring of federal, state, and local enforcement personnel to combat methamphetamine trafficking in designated HIDTAs. It is my hope that such an increase will result in the designation of additional HIDTAs in areas, like my home state, where the greatest increase in the methamphetamine problem is occurring. I also support this amendment because of the additional $9.5 million it provides to enable the DEA to hire new agents to help state and local enforcement officials in the small and mid-sized towns with limited resources where methamphetamine is so often found to conduct more methamphetamine investigations. This amendment also will provide an additional $5.5 million for the DEA to train state and local law enforcement officials in one of their most dangerous duties, the cleanup of methamphetamine labs. Finally, I wish to commend and thank Senators Hatch, Ashcroft, Grassley, and my other colleagues who have worked so tirelessly on this bill and to address the methamphetamine problem and urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today before the Senate to praise one of the true heroes of the civil rights movement, Daisy Bates. In her death yesterday at age 84, America has lost one of the most courageous advocates for justice and equality between races. Daisy Bates' life was one of conviction and resolve. Her character was a model of grace and dignity. Mrs. Bates was born in 1914, the small town of Huttig, Arkansas in the southern part of the state. Her life was touched by the violence of racial hatred at a young age, when her mother was killed while resisting the advances of three white men. Her father left soon thereafter, and Daisy was raised by friends of her family. Daisy moved to Little rock and married L.C. Bates, a former newspaperman, in 1942. For eighteen years, the two published the Arkansas State Press, the largest black newspaper in the state. The Arkansas State Press was an influential voice in the state of Arkansas which played a key role in the civil rights movement. Daisy and L.C. used the State Press to focus attention on issues of inequity in the criminal justice system, police brutality and segregation. In 1952, Daisy was elected president of the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It was from this position that she was thrust into the national spotlight, as a leader during the crisis of Central High School in 1957, when black students attempting to enter the school were blocked by rioters and the National Guard. Throughout the crisis, the Little Rock Nine would gather in her tiny home before and after school to strategize about their survival. It was her home from which the Little Rock Nine were picked up from every morning by federal troops to take them to Central High, to face the rioters and the hatred. It was her home that was attacked by the segregationists. Even after the Little Rock Nine finally received federal protection to attend Central High, Daisy Bates continued to face violence and harassment. Threats were made against her life. Bombs made of dynamite were thrown at her house. KKK crosses were burned on her lawn. On two separate occasions, her house was set on fire and all the glass in the front of the house was broken out. It's hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for Daisy Bates to continue pursuing her convictions under such circumstances, but her perseverance is true testament to the strength of her character. Despite the violence, harassment and intimidation, Daisy Bates would not be deterred. She spent several more decades actively advancing the cause of civil rights, and helped the town of Mitchellville, Arkansas to elect its first black mayor and city council. I am saddened that Mrs. Bates will not be on hand next week when the Little Rock Nine is presented the Congressional Medal of Honor. That honor is truly one that belongs to her, the woman who shepherded those brave young men and women through those extremely difficult days forty years ago. My prayers go out to the family and the many friends of Daisy Bates. I know that God is throwing open the gates of heaven today for Daisy, a woman who helped so many others enter doors that were once barred to them.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 20, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on the efforts of the military services in implementing joint experimentation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, The Committee on the Judiciary requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 9 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 20, for purposes of conducting a Water and Power Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1167, a bill to amend the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act to provide for expanding the scope of the Independent Scientific Review Panel; S. 1694, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater in the State of Hawaii; S. 1612, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain irrigation project property to certain irrigation and reclamation districts in the State of Nebraska; S. 1474, a bill providing conveyance of the Palmetto Band project to the State of Texas; S. 1697, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to refund certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982; S. 1178, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, on the condition that the current preferential leaseholders shall have an option to purchase from the Commission, and for other purposes; and S. 1723, a bill to establish a program to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to plan, design, and construct facilities to mitigate impacts associated with irrigation system water diversions by local governmental entities in the Pacific Ocean drainage of the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet on Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 10 a.m. in Executive Session to mark up the Tax Extenders Bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the operations of the Architect of the Capitol.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to mark up pending legislation to be followed by a hearing on Indian Reservation Roads and the Transportation Equity Act in the 21st Century (TEA-21). The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 20, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on effects of performance enhancing drugs on the health of athletes and athletic competition in SD-106.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 20, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his passionate, eloquent, and articulate explanation in defense of this legislation. I had the privilege of presiding during Senator Santorum's statement. I cannot say as well, I cannot say as passionately what the Senator from Pennsylvania said so very well in explaining the need for this legislation and why we are taking the time on the floor of the Senate to debate it and to vote on it. I am here so he might not stand alone, and he does not stand alone. There will be better than 60 percent of the Senate voting for this legislation, and better than 80 percent of the American people support a ban on this horrible procedure. But this is not a subject, it is not a topic, it is not an issue about which people like to talk. It is not something Senators feel comfortable coming down and talking about; it is not something I feel comfortable talking about, but I do think it is very important. Once again, I commend my colleague for the leadership he has shown on this issue. Mr. President, the Nation was shaken with a sense of disbelief over 5 years ago in 1994 when we discovered that a young mother in South Carolina, Susan Smith, had murdered her own children and then pretended they had been kidnapped. In my home State of Arkansas, in recent days, a young woman in her ninth month of pregnancy was savagely attacked by three young men who had been hired by the woman's boyfriend and the father of her unborn child to force her to lose her baby. That was the reason he contracted with these thugs, to, in effect, murder that unborn child. They beat her with severe blows to her stomach and explicitly told her that their intent was to kill her child, a child the father did not want. As we were dealing with the shock of this gruesome tragedy, we learned of a Memphis man who confessed to driving across the river last summer into the Arkansas Delta with his wife and throwing the couple's 18-month-old child down into a 15-foot levee, leaving the child to die a slow and painful death of exposure to the elements. After this horrific event, the same couple allegedly returned 3 days later and drowned their other child in a pond. Last month, the Washington papers were filled with the news of a Maryland man who stands accused of killing his two small children and then reporting their deaths as the result of a carjacking. Unfortunately, these kinds of incidents become all too frequent today. The list goes on and on. The question I raise is, Are the tragedies I have recounted, and the scores of others that could be enumerated, related to the debate that we are having about partial-birth abortion? I know there are people who will howl there is no connection. There will be people who would object strenuously to even the suggestion being made that the all-too-frequent violence toward children could be related to a society's permissive attitude toward a procedure that would allow a baby to be partially born and then killed. But I would suggest that, in fact, there is a connection; that violence begets violence; that dehumanizing one part of mankind contributes to the dehumanizing of all vulnerable human beings--whether they are the disabled, whether they are the elderly, or whether they are the newborn. Many Americans were shocked--I was shocked--to hear of the Princeton professor of bioethics, who was recently hired, assumed a seat on the faculty at Princeton University, one of our most distinguished universities--a professor of bioethics, ironically--who said: I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person. A professor of bioethics, at a major American university, who can say that publicly and be defended. The questions Senator Santorum posed a few moments ago to the Senator from California--well, Professor Singer would not have had difficulty in answering the questions that he posed. He simply says: It is not always wrong to kill an innocent human being. Killing an infant is not the equivalent of killing a person. Is this where we are going? This professor believes parents should be allowed, 28 days after the birth of a severely disabled child, to decide whether or not they want to kill the child or keep the child. It was suggested earlier in the opening comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania that the debate we are having about this kind of procedure, 40 years ago, would have been unheard of in our society. No one can doubt that in this so-called age of enlightenment we have moved so far in what we view as acceptable in the area of taking the lives of those who are innocent. I listened very closely to the objections to this legislation as I presided in the chair during the opening statements of both sides earlier today. It seemed to me that every issue that was raised in opposition to this legislation was an effort to divert attention from the horror of this procedure. There was the issue of the timing of the vote. Whether this vote occurs this week or whether this vote would have occurred last week or next week does not change the horror of what we are talking about; it does not change the terrible nature of a procedure that kills a child that is partially born. I think every objection that has been raised is an effort to turn our attention away, divert our attention away from that chart that Senator Santorum had on the floor earlier today, which was far from being a cartoon but was very similar to medical charts. Then there was the objection that we were practicing medicine; that the Senate was seeking to practice medicine; that we should not make this decision; that it is a decision that should be made within the profession. It was Thomas Jefferson who said--and I will say it as close to his words as I can: The first and fundamental purpose of Government is the protection of innocent human life. There is no more fundamental goal and object of Government than the protection of its citizens, the protection of human life. We could not find a subject more relevant to what Government ought to be doing than this subject. To say we should not be involved in it because it is a medical issue is simply an effort to divert us from what really is the issue; that is, whether human life should be protected by law or not. It is always ironic to me that those who say Government should not be involved in this issue are the first to say Government should pay for this procedure, or at least abortions in general. Then there was the argument that the courts may rule this unconstitutional; therefore we should not even be voting on this because the courts, and the Supreme Court eventually, might rule this legislation unconstitutional. Isn't that ironic? Because I just listened to 4 days of debate in which the constitutionality of campaign finance reform proposals were argued on the floor of this Senate. No one said, well, we shouldn't even debate this proposal because the courts--in fact, the evidence is the courts have and will rule many portions of the so-called Shays- Meehan legislation unconstitutional as a violation of the first amendment--but it did not prevent us from having a healthy, prolonged debate about the need for campaign finance reform. I think it is an absolute red herring to say: Well, ultimately when the Supreme Court makes a definitive ruling on this subject, they may or may not rule that it is constitutional. That, in no way, abrogates our responsibility to debate it and to pass legislation that we believe is not only constitutional but in the best interests of this country. Then it was said: Well, we have had repeated votes on this before. We have had repeated votes on a lot of issues. The fact is, we have new Senators now. We are going to have some different votes. We voted repeatedly on campaign finance reform. It is a debate, I suspect, that will go on year after year. Because we have voted on this legislation before is no reason that we should not, once again, raise what many believe is the fundamental moral issue facing our culture today; that is, the issue of life. Senator Santorum so eloquently demonstrated the folly of where this ultimately leads. If killing an unborn child, who is partially delivered, with only his or her head still within the body of the mother, is legal, where then do we draw the line? Could we have a more basic, fundamental issue of gravity before this body than that? So time and time again we will hear, during the debate, the effort to take our attention away from where the focus should be, and that is unborn child and this horrible procedure. Every effort will be made to bring up the timing of the vote, the issue of whether or not this is in our purview, the practicing of medicine, which, of course, is very much within our purview, this issue of human life; the fact of what the courts have ruled or may yet rule on this or similar legislation--all of these are efforts to take the Nation's eyes off what this legislation is all about, and that is eliminating a barbaric, uncivilized procedure that no right-minded person can surely defend. It is a Federal crime to harm a spotted owl or a bald eagle or even its egg, but a helpless infant, completely dependent on its mother, is not accorded the same protections we afford the spotted owl or the bald eagle. In this body--I say to my colleagues who say we shouldn't take the time of the Senate to debate this issue--in this body, we debated an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that would have prohibited the use of steel leg hold traps. Perhaps that was a debate we should have had, but I believe it pales in comparison to the gravity and the seriousness of the issue we are now debating. We would protect the spotted owl, the bald eagle, or the inhuman practice of steel leg hold traps, but we have trouble protecting infants who are pulled from their mother's womb by the legs and killed. One of the finest writers in this Nation, I believe, hails from the State of Arkansas. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist whose name is Paul Greenberg. He is one of the most brilliant and, I think, articulate defenders of human life I have ever had the opportunity to read. I want to read for the record a couple of short paragraphs from the many columns this Pulitzer Prize winner has written: As always, verbal engineering has preceded social engineering. The least of these must be aborted in words before it becomes permissible to abort them in deed. Those whom we want out of the way must first be dehumanized or something within might hold us back. I wonder why there was such objection to even the term ``partial- birth abortion.'' Clearly, it describes what this procedure is. I think the author, Mr. Greenberg, has said it right: We have to do the verbal engineering before we do the social engineering, because to use the term ``partial-birth abortion'' suggests the humanity of that child. Then Greenberg wrote: What once would have inspired horror is now the mundane, even the scientific, the advanced, the enlightened. What once might have inspired dread is now sanctioned in the elastic name of constitutional right and individual freedom. That is what we are hearing today. We are hearing the defense of an indefensible procedure, sanctioned in the elastic name of constitutional right and individual freedom. When a question is raised, it is simply: I support Roe v. Wade; that is our right. What an elastic right it has become, to defend under Roe v. Wade a procedure that no one, no civilized person, could suggest is either good medicine or humane practice. I ask my colleagues to not be diverted from the issue but to think about the baby, think about the procedure, this horrible procedure, think about the pain that little baby feels, think about what kind of country we want to be. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, one of the highest compliments a person can receive is to be called a ``servant,'' someone who gives of himself for others. A man I've known for many years, a man of outstanding reputation, a man who has given a large part of his life in service to his neighbors, a man respected by his peers, is about to make a major change in his life. The people of the Fair State of Arkansas would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that change. Andrew Whisenhunt of Bradley, in Lafayette County in southwest Arkansas, was born in the town of Hallsville, TX. However, his family moved to the Natural State while Andrew was still a baby. So, technically he is not a native. However, Andrew is an Arkansas through and through. He has long been in the public eye. Yet, soon, Andrew will step down from the presidency of Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation after 13 years. A modern-day tiller of the soil, he has been a farmer for as long as he can remember--and his father before him. With loving support form his wife, Polly, and with help from his five children--Warren, Terri, Tim, Julie, and Bryan--Andrew has built the farm where he's lived almost all his life into what has been called a model of modern agriculture. And testimony to that has been the Whisenhunts' selection as ``Arkansas Farm Family of the Year'' in 1970, and Andrew's choice as ``Progressive Farmer Magazine's Man of the Year in Arkansas Agriculture'' in 1984. His love for his chosen profession has carried him far beyond the fence rows of his 2,000-acre cotton, rice, soybean, and wheat-and-feed grain operation. The journey began when he joined Lafayette County Farm Bureau in 1955. By the time Andrew was elected to the Board of Directors of Arkansas Farm Bureau in 1968, he had served in almost every office in his county organization, including president. In his early years on the Farm Bureau State board, he worked on several key board panels, including the Executive and Building committees. (The latter's work resulted in construction of Farm Bureau Center in Little Rock in 1978.) His fellow board members thought enough of his personal industry and leadership abilities that they elected him their secretary-treasurer in 1976, an office he filled for 10 years. During that time, Andrew also was active outside the Farm Bureau arena as, among other things, a charter member of Arkansas Soybean Promotion Board, and as a former president of both the American Soybean Development Foundation and the Arkansas Association of Soil Conservation Districts. Then he was elected president of Arkansas Farm Bureau in 1986. During his tenure, the organization has enjoyed unprecedented growth in membership, influence and prestige. When Andrew accepted the mantle of top leadership, Farm Bureau represented some 121,000 farm and rural families in the State. Today, that figure stands at almost 215,000--and Arkansas has become the 8th largest Farm Bureau of the 50 States and Puerto Rico. As Arkansas Farm Bureau has grown, Andrew's leadership has done likewise. As an influential member of American Farm Bureau Federation's Executive Committee, he has traveled far and wide as an advocate not just for Arkansas farmers, but to advance American interests in international trade and relations. He was a member of the Farm Bureau delegation that visited Russia after the Iron Curtain shredded, to experience that nation's agriculture firsthand and to offer help to farmers there. Andrew also was a key player in delegations to China, Japan, and the Far East, and to South America. He was among U.S. farm leaders who traveled to Cuba recently to see how trade with that nation might be re-established. He even led a group of Arkansas farm leaders first to pre-NAFTA Mexico; then to deliver rice the Farm Bureau had donated to a Central American village devastated by Hurricane Mitch. Andrew's influence and tireless work ethic embrace the nonfarm sector as well. His service to his local community includes county and city school boards, his local hospital board, the Bradley Chamber of Commerce and his church. He also is a board member of Florida College in Tampa. When Andrew steps down as president of Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation in December, the members of that great organization will miss him greatly. But he has never been one to sit still, and chances are, that won't change. As the new century unfolds, Farm Bureau's loss undoubtedly will be a gain somewhere else for all Arkansans.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a provision by Senator Ashcroft included in the Senate version of the Agricultural Appropriations Act for FY2000. This provision passed with 70 votes in the Senate but it was subsequently stripped out of the conference report after the conference stalled and never reconvened. The Ashcroft provision is simple. It substantially curtails the use of unilateral sanctions of food and medicines without removing them absolutely from the palette of foreign policy options. If the President decided to include food and medicine in future sanctions, he would have to receive the approval of Congress, through an expedited procedure. Mr. President, American farmers have spoken and they want help. In the past year, cotton prices have tumbled 46 percent and wheat is down more than 60 percent. Corn sells for as low as $1.50 for a bushel in some places. It is not surprising that net farm income dropped almost one billion dollars between 1996 and 1998. Storms and drought have destroyed our Nation's crops. We must help our struggling farmers out of this crisis. The farmers in my home State of Arkansas have made it clear to me that one measure needed to help them out of the current crisis is an expansion of export markets. Indeed, our farmers are missing out on millions of dollars in exports each year. It is estimated that agricultural sanctions have robbed U.S. farmers out of an estimated ten percent of the world wheat market and half a billion dollars in sales. Before agricultural sanctions were placed on Cuba in 1963, that country was the largest U.S. export market for rice, taking more than 50 percent of total rice exports. Even today, American farmers are losing out to farmers in Canada, Europe, and Asia who sell $600 million worth of food products to Cuba. While President Clinton issued an executive order in April of this year allowing food and medicine sales to Sudan, Libya, and Iran, these sales would still face significant restrictions. Sales would be licensed on a case-by-case basis and made only to non-governmental entities. In some cases, where there are no non-governmental entities buying food for the people, no sales could be made. It is true that the regimes that are sanctioned from food and medicine, including the governments of the Sudan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Cuba, are reprehensible. But we must also consider the populations of the these countries--people with whom we have no argument, people who are starving, people who are sick because they do not have enough food or medicine. While governments may intentionally withhold food and medicine from their populations, both to foster anti-American sentiment and to keep the people under subjection, we benefit no one by denying our farmers the opportunity to sell their crops. If we allow these sales--if we rein back our food and medicine sanctions, then we leave these regimes without an excuse for not providing their people with food. We close off a channel of resentment and make clear to people living under repression that their government is solely responsible for leaving them hungry. And we leave these governments with less money for weapons. Senator Ashcroft's provision accomplishes all of these things. Mr. President, I am not arguing for a provision that has been defeated and will never reappear. Let me say again that the Senate passed this provision with 70 votes. I am confident that it will advance this legislation favorably again.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes to speak in opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I also sat through a week of hearings last week. I also, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, had the opportunity to hear our intelligence community, to hear representatives from the Department of Defense, and to hear the Directors of our laboratories. I respectfully reached a different conclusion as to what the evidence is. In fact, in my estimation, the evidence is strong enough to raise serious doubts about the wisdom of ratifying this treaty. The evidence, I believe, indicates that in fact Russia is currently testing low-level nuclear weapons and is seeking to develop, from their own public statements and the Russian media, a new type of tactical weapon, and there were suspected Russian tests as recently as September 8, 1999, and September 23, 1999. I believe when we have these kinds of issues of the gravest weight to our Nation and to our Nation's security, when there are doubts about verification--and I think it is overwhelmingly clear from what I heard from the intelligence community--we cannot have assurance that we will be able to verify a zero-yield treaty. That was very plain and very clear from the testimony we heard. Verification is not possible. Therefore, it is not in the best interests of our Nation to ratify this treaty. There are numerous reasons to oppose the treaty. We have heard many of them during the debate on the floor of the Senate. Many have been discussed very clearly. I will focus on one particular feature of this agreement which, in my view, is sufficient in and of itself to reject ratification of this treaty. That is the issue of the treaty's duration. This is an agreement of unlimited duration. It is an agreement that is in perpetuity. That means if it is ratified, the United States will be committing itself forever not to conduct another nuclear test. It would make us dependent upon, totally reliant upon, the Stockpile Stewardship Program. From what we heard from the Directors of the labs last week, the Stockpile Stewardship Program is, by all accounts, a work in progress. Some said it would take 5 years to reach the point where we could have confidence in the program; some said 10. One said it would be as long as 15 to 20 years before we could know whether or not this program was going to be of a sufficient confidence level that we could count upon it without reliance upon tests. There are two major questions about this program. One is, Will it work? We are not going to know that for many years. Will it work sufficiently that we can rely upon high-speed computers and modeling and annual examinations without any kind of test to have the confidence that they are reliant and safe and that, should they tragically ever need to be used, we could count on them actually working? The second very big issue is whether it will be funded adequately so the program can be developed to that level of confidence. We have every indication that this will be an area in which Congress in the future will seek to cut, an area in which there will not be the kind of commitment, the kind of resources to ensure the development of this Stockpile Stewardship Program to a point we can have absolute confidence in it. I want Members to think about the duration of this treaty--forever. Are we so confident today that we will never again need nuclear testing, so certain that we are willing to deprive all future Commanders in Chief, all future military leaders, all future Congresses of the one means that can actually prove the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent? Are we that confident? I suggest we are not. Proponents of the treaty will say that that is not the case, that this commitment is not forever. They will point to the fact that the treaty allows for withdrawal if our national interest requires it. Proponents of the treaty promise that if we reach a point where the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent cannot be guaranteed without testing, then all we need to do is exercise our right to withdraw and we would, at that point, resume testing. This so-called ``supreme national interest'' clause, along with safeguard F, in which President Clinton gives us his solemn word that he will ``consider'' a resumption of testing if our deterrent cannot be certified, is supposed to give us a sense of reassurance. The fact is, this reassurance is a hollow promise. I think supporters of the treaty realize it. The fact is, if the critical moment arrives and there is irrefutable evidence that we must conduct nuclear testing to ensure our deterrent is safe, reliable, and credible, those same treaty supporters will be shouting from the highest mountain that the very act of withdrawing from this treaty would be too provocative to ever be justified, that no narrow security need of the United States could ever override the solemn commitment we made to the world in agreeing to be bound by this treaty. If Members don't believe that will happen, they need only to look at our current difficulties with the 1972 ABM Treaty. I believe it provides a chilling glimpse of our nuclear future should we ratify an ill-conceived test ban at this time. As is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the ABM Treaty is of unlimited duration. There are many parallels. That is one of them. The ABM Treaty includes a provision allowing the United States to withdraw if our national interests so demand, another very clear parallel and treaty obligations are more clearly mismatched than with the ABM Treaty today. It is very difficult to imagine a situation in which the national security interests we have could be more clearly mismatched than with the ABM Treaty. Its supporters insist, though, that withdrawal is not just ill advised, but supporters would say it is unthinkable. The voices wailing loudest about changing this obsolete agreement are the same ones urging us today to entangle ourselves in another treaty of unlimited duration. Earlier, Senator Kyl rightly pointed out that the negotiators for this treaty originally wanted a 10-year treaty. Previous Presidents wanted a treaty of limited duration, but we have before us one that would lock us into a commitment in perpetuity. Think of the ways in which the ABM Treaty is mismatched with our modern security needs. Yet we confront our absolute unwillingness to consider any option to withdraw. The treaty was conceived in a strategic context utterly unlike today's, a bipolar world in which two superpowers were engaged in both a global rivalry and an accompanying buildup in strategic nuclear forces. Now, today, is a totally different context and situation. One of those superpowers no longer exists at all. What remains of that superpower struggles to secure its own borders against poorly armed militants. The arms race that supposedly justified the ABM Treaty's perverse deification of vulnerability has not just halted, it has reversed, no thanks to arms control. Today, Russian nuclear forces are plummeting due not to the START II agreement--which Russia has refused to ratify for nearly 7 years--but to economic constraints and the end of the cold war. In fact, their forces are falling far faster than treaties can keep up with; arms control isn't ``controlling'' anything; economic and strategic considerations are. Similar forces have led the United States to conclude that its forces can also be reduced. Thus, despite a strategic environment completely different from the one that gave birth to the ABM Treaty, its supporters stubbornly insist we must remain a party to it. In 1972, only the Soviet Union had the capability to target the United States with long-range ballistic missiles. Today, numerous rogue states are diligently working to acquire long-range missiles with which to coerce the United States or deter it from acting in its interests, and these weapons are so attractive precisely because we have no defense against them; indeed, we are legally prohibited from defending against them by the ABM Treaty of 1972. Technologically, too, the ABM Treaty is obsolete. The kinetic kill vehicle that destroyed an ICBM high over the Pacific Ocean on October 2 was undreamed of in 1972. So was the idea of a 747 equipped with a missile-killing laser, which is under construction now in Washington State, or space-based tracking satellites like SBIRS-Low, so precise that they may make traditional ground-based radars superfluous in missile defense. Yet this ABM Treaty, negotiated almost three decades ago, stands in the way of many of these technological innovations that could provide the United States with the protection it needs against the world's new threats. Now proponents of this new treaty will say we can always pull out, that if situations and circumstances change, we can always invoke our national security provision and we can withdraw from this treaty. If in the future we find we must test in order to ensure the stability and reliability and safety of our nuclear deterrent, we can pull out and do that. I suggest that that is not even a remote possibility. Once we make this commitment, just as we did on the 1972 ABM Treaty, there will be no withdrawing, there will not even be consideration of the possibility that it might be in our national interest to withdraw from a treaty to which we have made a commitment. These new threats today have led to a consensus that the United States must deploy a national missile defense system and a recognition that we are behind the curve in deploying one. The National Missile Defense Act, calling for deployment of such a system as soon as technologically feasible, passed this body by a vote of 97-3, with a similar ratio of support in the House. Just as obvious as the need for this capability is the fact that the ABM Treaty prohibits us from deploying the very system we voted to deploy. But does anybody talk about withdrawing from the ABM Treaty because it is in our national security interests? Absolutely not. I suggest we will be in the same kind of context should we ratify the treaty that is before us today. Clearly, the ABM Treaty must be amended or jettisoned. The Russians have so far refused to consider amending it, so withdrawal is the most obvious course of action if United States security interests are to be served. Listen to the hue and cry at even the mention of such an option today. From Russia to China to France, and even to here on the floor of the Senate, we have heard the cry that the United States cannot withdraw from the ABM Treaty because it has become too important to the world community. Those who see arms control as an end in itself oppose even the consideration of withdrawal, claiming passionately that the United States owes it to the world to remain vulnerable to missile attack. Our participation in this treaty transcends narrow U.S. security interests, they claim; we have a higher obligation to the international community, they claim. After all, if the United States is protected from attack, won't that just encourage others to build more missiles in order to retain the ability to coerce us, thus threatening the simplistic ideal of ``strategic stability''? That phrase, translated, means that citizens of the United States must be vulnerable to incineration or attack by biological weapons so other nations in the world may do as they please. Even though the ABM Treaty is hopelessly outdated--almost 30 years old--and prevents the United States from defending its citizens against the new threats of the 21st century, supporters of arms control insist that withdrawal is unthinkable. Its very existence is too important to be overridden by the mere security interests of the United States. Absurd as such a proposition sounds, it is the current policy of this administration, and it is supported by the very same voices who now urge us to ratify this comprehensive test ban. The Clinton administration has been reluctantly forced by the Congress into taking serious action on missile defenses--thankfully. It admits that the system it needs to meet our security requirements cannot be deployed under the ABM Treaty. Yet so powerful are the voices calling on the United States to subjugate its own security interests to arms control that the administration is proposing changes to the ABM Treaty that, by its own admission, will not allow a missile defense system that will meet our requirements. It has declared what must be done as ``too hard to do'' and intends to leave the mess it created for another administration to clean up. All because arms control becomes an end in itself. That sorry state of affairs is where we will end up if the Senate consents to ratification of the CTBT. Those treaty supporters who are saying now, ``Don't worry, there is an escape clause,'' will be the same ones who, 5 or 10 years from now--when there is a problem with our stockpile and the National Ignition Facility is not finished and we find out we overestimated our ability to simulate the workings of a nuclear weapon--will be saying we dare not withdraw from this treaty because we owe a higher debt to the international community. That is what we will hear. I don't represent the international community; I represent the people of the State of Arkansas. Our decision here must serve the best interests of the United States and its citizens. Our experience with the ABM Treaty is a perfect example of how arms control agreements assume an importance far beyond their contribution to the security of our Nation. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty's unlimited duration is a virtual guarantee that this agreement will prevent us from conducting nuclear testing long past the point at which we decide such testing is necessary. As our ABM experience shows, we should take no comfort from the presence of a so-called ``supreme national interest'' clause. Now, should we just put it off or should we vote on it? I believe our responsibility is not the world opinion. Our responsibility is, frankly, not the public opinion polls of the United States. The American people, as a whole, have not had the benefit of hearing the Directors of our National Labs or the DOD come and testify before us as to the difficulties of verification and the difficulties of developing our Stockpile Stewardship Program. If it is a flawed treaty--and I believe it is--if it is a defective treaty--and I believe it is--if it is not in our national security interest--and I believe it is not--then we should vote, and we should vote to defeat the treaty and not ratify it. This is a treaty that I believe will not get better with age. It will not get better by putting it on a shelf for consideration at some future date. I believe it is flawed. I believe it is defective. I believe it is not in our national security interest. I believe it is our constitutional responsibility not to put it off but to vote our conscience. I urge the defeat of what I believe is a flawed treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will speak for a moment about why I think this amendment is so important. When I travel through Arkansas and with the opportunities I have had to be in other parts of the country where we have had hearings on workforce protections, one of the complaints I hear so frequently from my constituents is that regulatory agencies in general exceed the authority that has been delegated by the Congress. One of the frustrations I hear expressed from so many small businesspeople and others is: If you in the Senate and the House are the ones elected by us to represent us, why do these regulatory agencies seem to go off on their own, contrary to what you have expressed in legislation? It is a question that is always difficult to answer. Frankly, too often we have allowed, whether it be OSHA or the IRS, regulatory agencies to exceed their statutory authority, and we have done an insufficient job in reining in what they are doing. In this particular case, I think we see exactly that. OSHA is an agency to which we have delegated power. It seems to be determined to extend its regulatory power in a negative way through the imminent implementation of this ergonomic standard, regardless of that standard's effectiveness in protecting workers or its cost to American industry. So, yes, there is an issue of safety; yes, there is an issue of cost; and, yes, there is an issue of what is the scientific basis for what OSHA is propounding to do. So often what we find regulatory agencies doing ends up having unintended consequences which the Congress must go back and try to rectify at some later date or which results in a reversal of the rulemaking process in these various agencies. We have already heard, in evidence presented on the floor of the Senate today, that there is concern that a premature ergonomic standard could have counterproductive consequences. I say to my colleagues, if you are concerned about the health and welfare of the American workplace, if you are concerned about the safety of the American worker, then let's be sure that when OSHA implements a rule, they do so with a sound scientific basis for what they are doing. Now, I don't know. If we can't count on the nonpartisan, highly respected Congressional Research Service, then who do we look to? That is why we pay them. That is why we have established them. They are well-respected. This is what they said. Senator Nickles earlier quoted part of the CRS report. Let me quote an additional part of what they said. They said: . . . because of the wide variety of tasks, equipment, stresses and injuries involved, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly. They continue: . . . ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there is substantial evidence of a problem, it is very complex and only partially understood. I think it is not prudent to move forward with a rule when the CRS has concluded the issue is complex and we do not understand it. It is only partially understood. How can you implement a rule that is in the best interest of the American worker, much less the American economy, if we do not understand what the problem is and we can only acknowledge it is partially understood and it is complex? As an example, the CRS cites that while a whole ``host of new products and services have become popular--such as back braces and newly designed keyboards--there is little in the way of scientific evidence about whether they do any good.'' What the opponents of this amendment are suggesting is that though we do not understand the issue, though it is acknowledged to be complex, though the CRS says we have a host of new products and services out there but there is no scientific evidence as to whether they do any good or not, we should nonetheless give the green light for OSHA to move ahead in a rulemaking process without substantial scientific basis for that rule. Proponents of the ergonomics standard claim this issue has been adequately studied, if not overstudied--and that is what my friend and colleague from Minnesota was just saying--but it is simply not the case. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, after conducting an extensive review of the literature, stated that there are ``huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding'' which ``make it clear how little we really know about ergonomics.'' So those who would say, well, we have studied it--we have studied it and studied it--we have studied it enough, so let's go ahead with the rule, they are ignoring the basic conclusion, the overwhelming conclusion of the evidence and the literature on this issue, which concludes we simply do not understand ergonomics. There are ``huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding.'' To my colleagues, I say it is for that reason that the Congress wisely, I believe, last year, in the omnibus appropriations bill, appropriated $890,000 so that we could fill those huge, fundamental gaps in our understanding concerning the issue of ergonomics--$890,000 for a more thorough review of literature by the National Academy of Sciences, a thorough study by the NAS, which, if there is a more respected group than the CRS, certainly in the area of science, it would be the NAS. We want a rule, but we want a rule to be based upon good science, not something that is moved forward without adequate study and without adequate scientific basis, that could have negative impacts upon workers, and certainly will have negative impacts upon the workplace and the economics of the workplace. Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that we authorized, we spent, we appropriated $890,000, OSHA has refused to wait for the results of that study. They already released a discussion draft of the ergonomic standard in February of this year. I simply find it inexplicable why OSHA cannot wait for this definitive study to be completed. To me, it does not seem prudent to rush to judgment. To me, it does not seem prudent to rush to implement a rule without knowing exactly what the consequence of that rule would be, how much it would help workers, or how much it might hurt workers, or exactly how much of a burden it would be to businesses. We do not know the answers to those questions. We need to know the answers before we allow OSHA to move forward with the rule. Finally, I do not know that I can justify to my constituents in Arkansas, and to the average Arkansas worker who makes a median income of $27,000, how the Federal Government effectively wasted $890,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars by not even waiting for the completion of this study. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Bond amendment and make OSHA await the outcome of the NAS study so they can devise an ergonomics standard that will be effective in protecting American workers without unnecessarily burdening American businesses. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to speak on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we limit the debate to 1 hour on this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Communist party celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the People's Republic of China on October 1. Unfortunately, many Chinese people had little reason to celebrate. Indeed, this was not a celebration of the Chinese people but an orchestrated celebration of the Communist party--a party of purges. From the formative decade of Yenan, where the party was headquartered, and Mao Tse-tung soundly crushed challenges to his power, to the killing of hundreds of landlords in the 1950s; to the anti-rightist purging of half a million people following the Hundred Flowers period and during the Great Leap Forward; to the Cultural Revolution, during which millions were murdered or died in confinement; to the massacre at Tiananmen square just ten years ago--the Communist party under Mao Tse-tung and Deng Xiaoping sustained its existence not by the consent of the people, but through the violent elimination of dissent. Even today, we see the party of purges in action on a daily basis. The Communist party under Jiang Zemin is deeply engaged in a piercing campaign to silence the voices of faith and freedom--to purge from society, anyone they see as a threat to their power. The Chinese government continues to imprison members of the Chinese Democracy Party. In August, the government sentenced Liu Xianbin to thirteen years in prison on charges of subversion. His real crime was his desire for democracy. Another Democracy Party member, Mao Qingxiang, was formally arrested in September after being held in detention since June. He will likely languish in prison for ten years because of his desire to be free. I could go on, but some human rights groups estimate that there could be as many as 10,000 political prisoners suffering in Chinese prisons. The party is determined to purge from society those people it finds unsavory. And the Chinese government will not tolerate people worshiping outside its official churches. So when it began cracking down on the Falun Gong meditation group, which it considers a cult, the government used this inexcusable action to perpetrate another--an intensified assault on Christians. In August, the government arrested thirty-one Christian house church members in Henan province. Henan province must be a wellspring of faith because over 230 Christians have been arrested there since October. Now I am concerned that eight of these House church leaders may face execution if they are labeled and treated as leaders of a cult. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the eyes of the international community are watching. I hope that these peaceful people will be released. In the months leading up to this fiftieth anniversary celebration, everything and everyone were swept aside to cast a glamorous light on the Communist party. But the reality was quite ugly. Hundreds of street children, homeless, and mentally and physically disabled people were rounded up and forced into Custody and Repatriation centers across the country. There they were beaten, they were given poor food in unsanitary conditions, and they had to pay rent. In fact, only 500,000 carefully selected citizens were allowed to participate in the celebration in Beijing. Non-Beijing residents could not enter the city and migrant workers were sent home. They did not see the Communist Party in all its glory, as it displayed the DF-31 intercontinental ballistic missile and other arms, nor did they see the tanks rolling past Tiananmen Square. And Tibetans in Lhasa, who certainly did not want to celebrate, were forced to participate under threat of losing their pay or their pensions. Mr. President, this was a celebration of the party, not the people. But this gilded celebration will not obscure the corrosion beneath. We must recognize the nature of this corrupt regime. We must never turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to cries of those suffering in China. We must face reality when we deal with the Chinese government. So when Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin courts President Jiang Zemin even when Time Magazine's China issue is banned, when our top executives are silent on human rights, when we put profit over principle, we are shielding our eyes from the stark reality of persecution in China. As Ronald Reagan said, ``. . . we demean the valor of every person who struggles for human dignity and freedom. And we also demean all those who have given that last full measure of devotion.'' It is my sincere hope and desire that in the next fifty years, the Chinese people will truly have something to celebrate. I hope that they will no longer be suppressed by a regime that extracts dissent like weeds from a garden, but that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of a government accountable to the people. I hope that the self- congratulatory shouts of the Communist party will be drowned out by the voices of a free people.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the Communist party is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the People's Republic of China on October 1. Unfortunately, many Chinese people have little reason to celebrate. Indeed, this is not a celebration of the Chinese people but an orchestrated celebration of the Communist party--a party of purges. From the formative decade at Yenan, where the party was headquartered, and Mao Tse-tung soundly crushed challenges to his power; to the killing of hundreds of landlords in the 1950s; to the anti-rightist purging of half a million people following the Hundred Flowers period and during the Great Leap Forward; to the Cultural Revolution, during which millions were murdered or died in confinement, to the massacre at Tiananmen Square just ten years ago--the Communist party has sustained its existence not by the consent of the people, but through the violent elimination of dissent. Even today, we see the party of purges in action on a daily basis. The Communist party is deeply engaged in a piercing campaign to silence the voices of faith and freedom--to purge from society, anyone they see as a threat to their power. The Chinese government continues to imprison members of the Chinese Democracy Party. In August, the government sentenced Liu Xianbin to thirteen years in prison on charges of subversion. His real crime was his desire for democracy. Another Democracy Party member, Mao Qingxiang, was formally arrested in September after being held in detention since June. He will likely languish in prison for ten years because of his desire to be free. I could go on, but some human rights groups estimate that there could be as many as 10,000 political prisoners suffering in Chinese prisons. The party is determined to purge from society, those people it finds unsavory. And the Chinese government will not tolerate people worshiping outside its official churches. So when it began cracking down on the Falun Gong meditation group, which it considers a cult, the government used this inexcusable action to perpetrate another--an intensified assault on Christians. In August, the government arrested thirty-one Christian house church members in Henan province. Henan province must be a wellspring of faith because over 230 Christians have been arrested there since October. Now I am concerned that eight of these House church leaders may face execution if they are labeled and treated as leaders of a cult. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the eyes of the international community are watching. I hope that these peaceful people will be released. In the months leading up to this fiftieth anniversary celebration, everything and everyone has been swept aside to cast a glamorous light on the Communist party. But the reality is quite ugly. Hundreds of street children, homeless, and mentally and physically disabled people have been rounded up and forced into Custody and Repatriation centers across the country. They are beaten, they are given poor food in unsanitary conditions, and they must pay rent. In fact, only 500,000 people will be allowed to participate in the celebration in Beijing. Non-Beijing residents cannot enter the city and migrant workers have been sent home. They will not be able to see the Communist Party in all its glory, as it displays the DF-31 intercontinental ballistic missile and other arms, nor will they see the tanks rolling past Tiananmen Square. And Tibetans in Lhasa, who certainly do not want to celebrate, are being forced to participate under threat of losing their pay or their pensions. This gilded celebration will not obscure the corrosion beneath. We must recognize the nature of this regime. We must never turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to cries of those suffering in China. We must be realistic when we deal with the Chinese government. So when Time Warner chairman Gerald Levin courts President Jiang Zemin even when Time Magazine's China issue is banned, when our top executives are silent on human rights, when we put profit over principle, we are shielding our eyes from the stark reality of persecution in China. As Ronald Reagan said, ``. . . we demean the valor of every person who struggles for human dignity and freedom. And we also demean all those who have given that last full measure of devotion.'' Mr. President, it is my sincere hope and desire that in the next fifty years, the Chinese people will truly have something to celebrate. I hope that they will no longer be suppressed by a regime that extracts dissent like weeds from a garden, but that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of democracy.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment to the appropriations bill on Labor-HHS. I think it is one that should be easy for Members to support. Let me very basically explain it, and then I will go into more detail. This would shift $25.472 million from the National Labor Relations Board to the Consolidated Health Centers Program. The $25.472 million is the increase in spending that has been added to the budget of the NLRB. I will explain this in further detail, but this would take that expense and shift it to what is a critical program for underserved areas in health care in this country. The NLRB requested an increase of $25.472 million in funding for the fiscal year 2000. Their argument is they need that increase in funding to reduce their backlog in cases. However, when one looks at the situation at the NLRB and looks at their own statistics provided by the National Labor Relations Board, justification for an increase is simply not there. In its annual report, the NLRB stated the number of cases that were pending before the NLRB declined from 37,249 in fiscal year 1997 to 34,664 in fiscal year 1998. The NLRB further reported the number of cases the NLRB is receiving declined from 39,618 in fiscal year 1997 to 36,657 in fiscal year 1998. From their own statistics, it is clear that the National Labor Relations Board can fulfill its statutory mandate to administer the National Labor Relations Acts without the better than $25 million increase in funding. In fact, the NLRB did not receive an increase last year and was not only able to fulfill their mandate but achieved these results which I have cited in seeing a decrease in the number of cases. How is that possible? When adjusted for inflation, from 1980 to 1998, while the NLRB budget declined by 21 percent, the number of charges received and processed has declined by 31 percent. While the NLRB can rightly say they have had a declining budget, if you look at the number of charges they have received and processed, it has had an even more dramatic decline. In his statement before the House Subcommittee on Labor-HHS, on March 25, the NLRB general counsel, Fred Feinstein, stated that the NLRB has adopted a program called Impact Analysis through which the NLRB has moved beyond the first-in-first-out approach in an effort to assure that the cases it gets to first are those that are central to its core mission. He further stated that the Impact Analysis Program has allowed the NLRB to assure that its backlog consists of lower priority cases. Not only has the backlog decreased but the cases that are in their own system are not of a lower priority. The NLRB estimates that of the 35,000 total charges filed each year, only approximately one-third--or 10,500--are found to have merit. The NLRB further estimates that of the 10,500 charges each year that are found to be meritorious, 86 percent--or 9,030--are settled. Therefore, the NLRB adjudicates only approximately 4 percent--or 1,470--of the charges it receives each year. So over 35,000 total charges, less than 4 percent, or about 4 percent, are ever adjudicated. So from the NLRB's own numbers, only 10,500 of the 35,000 charges have merit and 65 percent of all unfair labor practice charges are dismissed or withdrawn. Let me reiterate. Sixty-five percent of all unfair labor charges are dismissed or withdrawn because they are found to be without merit. Where does that leave us as a body? How do we justify funding their request at better than a $25 million increase at a time that the number of cases is decreasing and the number of adjudications is down 40 percent? How do we justify that? I know. I simply can't justify that. I think many of my colleagues will agree. If a society can be judged by how it treats its less fortunate, if a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members, then we must and the NLRB must make better use of resources and decide that we will tip the scales this time in favor of individuals, particularly children, who need health care. That is why my amendment will shift $25.472 million from the NLRB to the Consolidated Health Centers. It is not a cut in NLRB funding but a shifting of what would have been an increase in their funding to a critically urgent program, the Consolidated Health Centers. The Consolidated Health Centers Program is a Federal grant program funded under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act to provide for primary care health services in medically underserved areas throughout the United States. I suspect that the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Kansas, knows well about these kinds of underserved areas. In my home State of Arkansas--we have many in the Mississippi Delta region--they are desperately in need of these kinds of community health clinics. Specifically, this program makes grants to public and nonprofit private entities for the development and operation of community, migrant, and homeless health centers. Key to the mission of the Consolidated Health Centers Program is its recognition of the contours of our country and its diverse geography. Health care is needed in areas where economic, geographic, and cultural barriers limit access to primary health care for a substantial portion of the population. It might surprise a lot of folks, but today one- fifth of Americans live in rural areas. And many are in desperate need of health care. I grew up in a little town of 894. It is now up to 1,300. It is in a rural part of Arkansas. I wouldn't trade that place for growing up for any place in the world. But I know that while we have serenity, we have low crime--we had wide open spaces to run on the farm, and it was a wonderful place to grow up--there are also a lot of amenities most people take for granted which we didn't have. Whether it is in Kansas or Arkansas or Iowa, people living in those rural areas may be willing for the benefits they receive not to have the metro system, not to have a nice theater, not have the grand malls, and some of the things we enjoy so much in the Nation's Capital. However, the tragedy is not only do they give up those amenities but too often in Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas, across the Mississippi Delta and other rural areas, they also give up opportunities because of the economic deprivation of some of the areas that have good quality health care. Indeed, some don't have adequate health care facilities at all, while we take for granted such areas as the Pentagon City Mall, Tysons Corner, full service hospitals, dental centers, podiatrists, chiropractors, virtually a doctor for every part of your body. But that does not happen in the Mississippi Delta, rural Kansas, or Iowa. These health centers provide access to basic yet essential health services, including preventive health and dental services, acute and chronic care services, appropriate hospitalization, and specialty referrals. These centers are the safety net providers for those who fall through the cracks in our current health insurance marketplace. We may fight and we may argue on the floor of this Senate as to what we should do about managed care reform, what we should do about providing health care for those uninsured, but we don't need to argue about the need to increase funding for these vital community health centers. They are the ultimate safety net in our society. Health centers provide health care to people regardless of their ability to pay. By law they serve anyone who walks in through their doors--rich or poor, insured or not. Of the clients received by community health centers, 44 percent are children, 66 percent have incomes below poverty level. That is the issue before the Senate in this amendment: Are we going to fund more bureaucracy at the NLRB at a time they have a declining number of cases or are we going to shift the increase for small rural communities desperately in need of greater health care? In Arkansas alone, 41 health centers currently serve 80,000 Arkansans. Once again, 44 percent are children and two-thirds have incomes below the poverty level. Last month, during our August recess, I had the opportunity to visit 13 counties in the delta region. They are the poorest of the poor. They don't need a handout, but they need a helping hand, especially in the area of health care. I recently visited a new health clinic in Parkin, AR, made possible through a grant in this program, Consolidated Health Centers Program. I commend all the dedicated public servants and health care professionals at the Parkin Medical Clinic and all of the health centers in Arkansas for the invaluable contributions they make to their communities and commitment to improving public health. At a time when the number of uninsured in our country is over 40 million and growing, the community health centers play a pivotal role in providing care to those who need it most, the uninsured. By spending $25 million more for the health centers, we will enable them to serve 83,000 more people. That won't cover the expected need, but it is a step in the right direction. They say they need $264 million more to maintain current levels of coverage and care. Last year, we increased funding by $100 million for the health centers. Senator Specter--and I applaud his efforts in this appropriations bill--increases funding for the health centers by $99 million in addition. That is a good start, but they say in order to maintain current service they need $264 million. I believe this is a good investment and it is an easy choice. The choice is funding more bureaucracy at the NLRB at a time caseload is falling or shifting that increase to the communities, to the deprived and neglected communities of this country in which there is a high percentage of uninsured and a high percentage of children who don't have access to health care. We can help that situation and provide tens of thousands of people health care by the simple passage of this amendment. How much time remains?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I reserve the remainder of my time.