Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator will yield, I will respond to the Senator from Virginia. I only became aware only as you speak that there were bipartisan objections. Earlier today, on the other side of the aisle there were objections to bringing these amendments up today. I might add, these amendments were filed a month ago. As I spoke to the majority leader earlier this week, he was aware and it has been publicly reported these amendments were going to be offered to the DOD authorization. The majority leader encouraged me to stay on Friday so I would be able to offer these amendments earlier as opposed to later. He encouraged me not to wait until Monday or Tuesday in the debate, but offer them today, Friday. It was my plan not to return to my home State so I would be able to offer these amendments today. I am now aware there are objections, perplexing to me, obviously, because they passed by such margins in the House. Yes, I am aware there are objections. I am certainly no less committed to ensuring that these amendments will be debated and will be voted on. I think they are greatly important, and I think they are germane, and I think they are appropriate. I intend, when given the opportunity, to press for debate and for a vote.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak on several amendments which I would have offered today had objection not been raised. These amendments, to which objection has been raised on the basis that they are controversial, are, word for word, provisions that passed the U.S. House of Representatives many months ago by overwhelming margins. The first amendment I will be speaking on passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 415 to 1. It is that amendment dealing with coerced and forced abortions in the Nation of China to which objection has been raised and to which I will speak this morning. I further point out, these amendments were filed May 20, a month ago, to the defense authorization bill, and I announced my intent, even prior to that, to offer these amendments and to ensure that those provisions which passed the House with such overwhelming support, reflecting overwhelming public support for these provisions, would have an opportunity to be voted on in the U.S. Senate. I think those votes would have occurred much sooner had they not been tied up in committee. I think that they have overwhelming support, not only by the country, not only by the U.S. House of Representatives, but by the U.S. Senate, and when we have a chance to vote on them--and we will--that we will see them pass this body just as assuredly, and by the same kind of margin, as they passed the House. So, while there may be objection raised on the basis that they are controversial amendments, I think when the vote happens we will find they are really not controversial at all. I think we are going to find very few Senators willing to cast nay votes on amendments which are so commonsensical and so reflect the moral values of the American people. We will have an opportunity to find out later, but objection has been raised. The intent in offering these amendments somehow has been construed as being an effort to embarrass the President. I have no desire to embarrass the President on the eve of his trip. I do think it is important we send a certain message, and a clear, resounding message, to the Chinese Communist Government as to how important human rights abuses in that Nation--how important they are to our country, to our people, and to our Government. I would have been delighted to have had this debate and this vote a month ago. Had it not been for prolonged, extended debate on the tobacco bill, that would have happened. So the timing for the offering of these amendments is not such to have some design to embarrass the President on the eve of his trip to Beijing. The timing was unavoidable because of the prolonged, extended debate on the tobacco bill that I think ran into 4 weeks. But I remind my colleagues on the floor this morning, these amendments were offered a month ago, there was public attention paid to these amendments a month ago, and it was clearly announced that I intended to offer them a month ago. I think it is unfortunate we cannot go ahead and offer those amendments to the defense authorization bill today. The amendment, as I say, mirrors the language that passed overwhelmingly on the floor of the House. It would do two things. First, it condemns those officials of the Chinese Communist Party, the Government of the People's Republic of China, and other Chinese nationals involved in forced abortions and sterilization. I hardly think that is controversial. I do not think there are many people in this country who would say we should not condemn the practice of forced abortions and forced sterilizations. So the amendment does that. Second, the amendment would prevent such persons from entering or remaining in the United States. That is, it would deny visas to those Communist Government officials who are involved in the practice of forced sterilizations and forced abortions in the Nation of China. It would be based upon credible evidence, and that credible evidence would be ascertained by the Secretary of State. So, to the extent that that information is available, to the extent that we have factual evidence that a person is involved in this horrendous practice, as determined by our Secretary of State, then visas would be denied to those individuals. I just find it very difficult to see anything controversial about those two provisions in this amendment, but objection has been raised, although it passed by 415 to 1 in the House of Representatives. The objection has been raised on the basis of it being controversial because it condemns those Chinese Communist Party officials involved in abortions and sterilizations and would prevent them from receiving visas to travel to this country if the Secretary of State so determined that credible evidence indicated they were involved in that. That is the controversial amendment we are not allowed to offer today to the defense authorization bill. In an attempt to reach a 1 percent annual population growth rate, Chinese authorities, in 1979, instituted a policy of allowing one child per couple, providing monetary bonuses and other benefits as incentives. In subsequent years, it has been widely reported that women with one living child, who become pregnant a second time, are often subjected to rigorous pressure to end the pregnancy and undergo sterilization. Forced abortion and sterilization have not only been used in Communist China to regulate the number of children but to eliminate those regarded as defective under China's eugenics policy, the so- called natal and health care law. This law requires couples at risk of transmitting disabling congenital defects to their children to use birth control or undergo sterilization. China's leadership has admitted that coerced abortions and involuntary sterilizations occur but insists that officials involved in such incidents are acting outside the law and are punished. The extent to which this policy is carried out is not known, and while its enforcement is not uniform throughout China, the very fact that such a policy exists is abhorrent to people around the world who believe in basic human rights. China's population control officials, working with employers and work unit officials, routinely monitor women's menstrual cycles. They subject women who conceive without government authorization to extreme psychological pressure, to harsh economic sanctions, including unpayable fines and loss of employment and, in some instances, physical force. The aborting of unauthorized pregnancies, regardless of the stage of pregnancy--first trimester, second trimester, or even third trimester-- is apparently, in China, a routine occurrence. Some have argued that China commits about half a million third-trimester abortions annually. Most of these babies are fully viable when they are killed, and virtually all of these abortions are performed against the mother's will. I have also been told by those who have studied this issue that women are often imprisoned, brainwashed, and refused food until they finally break down and agree to the performing of an abortion. The actual methods by which doctors carry out these procedures are often unnerving and horrific. It has been reported that doctors commonly inject women with a shot of Rivalor, commonly known as ``the poison shot,'' which directly causes congestive heart failure in the baby. The baby slowly dies over the course of 2 or 3 days, at which time the baby will be delivered dead. I have also been made aware of reports that Chinese doctors also inject pure formaldehyde into the baby's soft spot of their head or the skull is crushed by the doctor's forceps. Steven Mosher, the Director of Asian Studies at California's Claremont Institute, can personally account for seeing doctors carrying ``chokers.'' These chokers are similar to our white twisty garbage ties. They are placed around the baby's neck during delivery. The baby then dies of painful strangulation over a period of about 5 minutes. A government that would force women to undergo these kinds of grisly procedures obviously has no respect for basic human rights. China currently has legislation that requires women to be sterilized after conceiving two children, and they even go so far as to demand sterilization of either the man or the woman if traces of a ``serious hereditary disease'' are found in an effort to eliminate the presence of children with handicaps, illnesses or other characteristics they might consider to be ``abnormal.'' Numerous international organizations have found that the Chinese Government utilizes in the sterilization method to control population horrendous practices. Mr. President, the practice of forced abortions by the Communist Chinese Government was truly exposed to America when my good friend and my former colleague in the House, Congressman Chris Smith, chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee held a hearing just less than 2 weeks ago, June 10. This hearing featured compelling testimony from a former administrator of China's Planned Birth Control Office on the use of coercive population control in order to achieve the Communist Government's one-child-per-couple limit. Ms. Gao Xiao Dunn, the former head of China's Planned Birth Control Office from 1984 to 1988, admitted--and we have heard testimony of what she said before the House subcommittee less than 2 weeks ago, the former head of the birth control office of Communist China, this is what she testified. She said: Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operation room, I saw how the aborted child's lips were sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull and the child died, and it was thrown into the trash can. To help a tyrant do evils was not what I wanted. I could not bear seeing all those mothers grief- stricken by induced delivery and sterilization. I could not live with this on my conscience. I, too, after all, am a mother. That was her very vivid, very powerful testimony before the House subcommittee, this former head of China's Planned Birth Control Office from 1984 to 1988. I think that her testimony, so very compelling, demands this body and this Government and this administration to take a stand in every way possible against these kinds of practices. In addition, Mrs. Gao Xiao Dunn admitted: When I was in my hometown in China, I saw how a large number of pregnant women were hiding anywhere they could. Some of them were 9 months pregnant, but were forced to undergo abortion procedures just the same--simply because they had no ``birth-allowed certificates.'' The government dismantled the houses of some of them and made them homeless. The government's planned birth policy is extremely stern. In my native village, I saw how many women were looking for places to hide at night, because the government usually catches people at night. All this made me terrified. There are those who apologize for the Chinese Government. They say, ``Oh, things are better, but these are not things going on today.'' Here is someone who knows. Here is someone who was involved in it. Here is someone who became so guilt-stricken by her own involvement in this practice that she couldn't stand it any longer and has come forward to tell that story. In her testimony, she discussed the abortions that occurred in jails where women were placed in jail who were fighting the physician's attempts to abort her child. She spoke of not only the jails where they were incarcerated, but she spoke of the abortion bed where women were tied in by leather straps and where those terrible procedures were performed. Their homes were destroyed if they fought the Government strictures on the one- child policy. What does our own State Department say? If we are not willing to accept the testimony of someone who put their own future in jeopardy by coming forward before a House subcommittee and telling their very vivid, compelling story, perhaps we will listen to our own State Department, because in the most recent human rights report on China issued only a few months ago, our own State Department said: The Government does not authorize the use of force to compel persons to submit to abortion or sterilization, but officials acknowledge that there are instances of forced abortions and sterilizations. . . . Poor supervision of local officials under intense pressure to meet family planning targets results in instances of abuse, including forced abortion and sterilization. . . . There are credible reports that several women were forced to undergo abortions of unauthorized pregnancies in Fujian. . . . Newspapers in Shenyang reported that family planning agents convinced a woman 7 months pregnant to take ``appropriate measures.'' That is an abortion, although she was in the seventh month. A well-documented incident of a 1994 forced 8-month abortion has been reported in the coastal province of Guangdong. A 1995 incident involving a forced sterilization was also reported in Guangdong. That is from the State Department. That is the end of the quote from our own State Department report. The Chinese Communist Government will deny that it is the official policy to encourage coerced abortions. They acknowledge that. Even the Chinese Communist Government acknowledges that these terrible practices occur. What do other human rights organizations say? We have heard from a former director of the birth control agency in China. We have heard from our own State Department, but independent groups that monitor human rights abuses in China have weighed in as well. Amnesty International has expressed its strong opposition to these coerced abortions, forced sterilization practices. In a 1996 report, ``Women in China: Detained, Victimized, but Mobilized,'' it iterated its profound concerns about these practices: Testimonies have indicated that officials have resorted to physical coercion resulting in torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when faced with this pressure. Family planning cadres continue to be disciplined and fired for failing to keep birth quotas. This is from Amnesty International. While Amnesty International takes no position on the official birth control policy in China, they are concerned about the human rights violations which result from its coercive application. Like many of the human rights organizations that monitor China, I am concerned by reports that forced abortion and sterilization have been carried out by or at the instigation of people acting in an official capacity--such as family planning officials-- against women who are detained, restricted or forcibly taken from their homes to have the operation. Previous reports by Amnesty International and other organizations have cited a wide range of evidence regarding the use of forcible measures taken from official family planning reports and regulations. Articles in the official Chinese press, testimonies from former family- planning officials, and testimonies from victims of forced abortion all attest that this is all too common still in 1997 in China. Reports have also detailed cases of hostages being taken and ill- treatment by officials of the relatives of couples who failed to pay birth control fines or who had fled their villages attempting to avoid abortion or sterilization. The Chinese authorities have never responded to such reports in detail. In recent years, they have simply asserted that ``coercion is not permitted,'' but they admit that it is going on. Mr. President, I am concerned that there is no evidence the Chinese authorities have yet set in place effective measures to ensure that such coercion is not only forbidden on paper, but punished and prevented in practice. I have been unable to find any instance of sanctions taken against officials who perpetuate such violations. In other words, the Chinese Communist Government today in the enforcement of their one-child policy turns a blind eye to local officials who use coercion, who use force, to compel women to have abortions against their will. Mr. President, the absence of laws and regulations in China concerning coercive family planning has become even more cause for concern since 1995. Since that time, China has made numerous commitments at the international level to combating violence against women. However, the absence of any substantive laws regulating forced abortions and sterilization appear to widen the potential for coercion. Mr. President, I am aware that some have concerns about how we can assure compliance with this amendment's requirement that visas be denied to individuals involved with these nefarious practices of forced abortions, of forced abortions and sterilizations. While I would expect a determined effort would be made to identify persons involved in such actions prior to the issuance of such visas, I recognize that enforcement will not be easy in every instance. And I would state that what is most important is that we provide both a strong condemnation of these practices, which the amendment does, and that we provide a mechanism for taking action against those responsible for them when credible information about their activities comes to light. Let me reiterate, there is absolutely nothing controversial about this amendment. We are talking about the kinds of family planning practices condemned across the political spectrum, by all who are concerned about moral values and basic human rights, that we take the modest action of saying we ought to condemn it as a government and we ought to deny visas to those who are perpetuating the practice in China, that to the extent we can identify them, to the extent that credible information comes forward, they should not be given visas to travel to this country. I do not believe--I really in my heart--do not believe there is anybody on the other side of the aisle who thinks this is a bad thing to do. So I am perplexed and I am befuddled that anybody would object to this amendment as being controversial. Not only is China an increasing threat internationally, but within their own borders they continue to oppress their own people. And we should not simply turn a blind eye and say we do not want to talk about it or that it might cause embarrassment to either our President or to the Chinese Government. What a pitiful excuse for not addressing the issue. Involuntary abortion or sterilization should be condemned, and it should be condemned in the strongest terms as a violation of human rights, a violation of the first order. I want to read a brief excerpt from Nicholas Kristof and his wife Sheryl Wudunn from their book, the 1994 book, ``China Wakes, The Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power.'' Mr. Kristof was the New York Times' Beijing bureau chief, and his wife Ms. Wudunn was a New York Times Beijing correspondent in the late 1980s. They are the only married couple to have ever won the Pulitzer Prize award. In 1989, Mr. Kristof and Ms. Wudunn were awarded with the Pulitzer Prize for their reporting during the Tiananmen Square massacre. They saw firsthand the Chinese Government's reprehensible practices. In particular, apart from the Tiananmen Square massacre, they saw firsthand the practices of forced abortions and sterilizations. This is what they wrote, these two prize-winning authors. They wrote: The family planning authorities routinely forced young women to undergo abortions and sterilization. The township authorities send teams into the villages once or twice a year to collect all the women who are due to be fitted with an IUD or to be sterilized. Some run away, in hopes they can remain fertile and have another baby, and the authorities then send goons to the women's relatives in other villages, even in other provinces, to find and sterilize them. Usually, they do not have to drag a woman to the operating table; when half a dozen men surround her home and order her to come out, she may not see much sense in fighting back. Mr. President, the bottom line is that the practice of forced abortion and sterilization is inhumane. The practice is repugnant, and it is morally reprehensible. This amendment, which I hope to be able to offer in the near future-- this amendment is not about a peculiarly American view of rights. It is not even about whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. It does not have a thing to do with this amendment. The use of force coercion, intimidation to commit such crimes against humanity is something that we all as a freedom-loving people--Democrat, Republican, pro-life, pro- choice--that all of us can join together in vigorously denouncing. I remind you again, what this amendment does is to condemn the practice and say, to the extent that we can identify these individuals, with credible information--the Secretary of State can do that--we will deny them visas. This amendment, this ``very controversial'' amendment, passed by a vote of 415-1 in the House of Representatives, this amendment to which objection has been made today on the basis of it being controversial. Mr. President, were I able to offer additional amendments today--and I had four prepared to be offered--I would move to amendment No. 2423, which I will not offer, but I intend to debate and make a statement on. This is another ``controversial'' amendment. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 366-54. I filed this amendment back on May 20, almost a month ago. I announced my intent at that time that I would offer this amendment to the defense authorization bill. It mirrors the language that passed the House of Representatives. It would do three things. It states, as congressional policy, that religious freedom should be a major facet of the President's policy towards China. Secondly, the amendment would prohibit the use of American funds appropriated for the Department of State, USIA or AID to pay for the travel of Communist Chinese officials involved in the monitoring of government-approved churches in China, or the formulation of implementation of policies to repress worship. So it would deny our Government paying the travel expenses for those who are involved in the Chinese Communist Government in monitoring and supervising churches, places of worship, and those who were involved in the repression and the persecution of religious minorities. Thirdly, it would deny visas to officials engaged in religious persecution--not the head of Government, not Cabinet members; we would exempt them; and not those who are the official heads of the Patriotic churches, but to Government officials involved in the persecution and repression of religious minorities--they would be denied visas. The conditions and the criteria would be the same--credible information, credible evidence as determined by the Secretary of State. Mr. President, since the founding of the People's Republic of China almost 50 years ago, the Chinese Government has too often been involved in the persecution of religious believers. And they have subjected all religious groups in China to comprehensive control by the state and the Chinese Communist Party. The five officially recognized religious denominations have been reorganized into state-controlled associations, as the Chinese Buddhist, the Daoist, the Islamic, the Patriotic Catholic associations, and the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement. Even within the pale of these authorized religions, Tibetan Buddhists and Uigher Moslems in Xinjiang have been subjected to wholesale persecution because of the enduring links between their religion and their national aspirations. For similar reasons, the Chinese Government has forcibly severed all links between Chinese Catholics and Protestants and their foreign coreligionists. In fact, while I was in China in January, I met with a group of American nationalists, American expatriates, who are doing business in China. They attend church in China and have an American church. It has to be an American church by law. They cannot allow Chinese people to attend. They have almost 1,000 Americans who attend this church. But in meeting with them, they said, were they to allow any of the Chinese nationals to attend and to worship with them, they would be shut down because of the Chinese Government's fear of any influence from outside its own borders. Millions of other religious believers, according to some estimates, the large majority of Chinese, have been deemed to fall outside these five recognized faiths and are simply denied any status as believers and are subjected to criminal penalties for practicing what the Government calls ``superstition'' or ``folk beliefs.'' Even congregations of authorized denominations are kept under rigid state control through mandatory registration, a requirement enforced with unprecedented severity through the last several years, what they called an anticrime crackdown. The anticrime crackdown became the rationale for cracking down on religious minorities in China. It has been very severe in recent years. Registration entails full state control over religious doctrines. I met with seminary officials while I was in China in Shanghai. We had a very interesting discussion. They are recognized, authorized, registered with the Government. But they made it very clear, as well, that there are certain things they are not allowed to do. I asked, could you go down the street, rent a building, and open that building for church services? There was a Government official sitting in the room, and they cast a weary glance at the Government officials, and they said no, that would not be tolerated; worship has to be done in approved places. I said, could you go out on the street, upstairs--we were meeting in a basement--could you go upstairs and pass out religious literature? Once again, a kind of weary glance at the Government officials in the room and they said no, that would not be permitted; religion must be constrained to certain geographical locations--a far different idea of what religious freedom is--in China today. The content of preaching in sermons is controlled by the Government. It is not permitted to preach on the ``second coming of Christ.'' That would be a taboo subject. They would not allow that to be taught or proclaimed in a Protestant or Catholic church in China. The selection of clergy--controlled by the Government. Financial affairs, religious materials, building programs--you can't go build a church without getting a zoning requirement. It is a means of controlling the growth, as well as restriction on educational and social welfare projects. There is a complete bar on proselytizing persons under 18 and an official veto over baptism at any age. Registered congregations must reveal the names and addresses of all congregants. The head of the state's Religious Affairs Bureau said in 1996, ``Our aim is not registration for its own sake but control over places for religious activities, as well as over all religious activities themselves.'' I don't know how you could be much more upfront, much more candid, than this official was, an individual who is the head of the entire China state Religious Affairs Bureau and very recently, in 1996, said, ``Our aim is not registration . . .'' just to register, our goal is ``control over places for religious activities, as well as over all religious activities themselves.'' The key word is the word ``control.'' That is the reason they require churches, synagogues, Buddhist temples, that is why they require all religious activities to be approved and sanctioned by the Government. Religious organizations are required to promote socialism and patriotism, while the massive state and party propaganda apparatus vigorously promotes atheism and combat superstition. While the Government officially promotes atheism, they demand that the churches support and promote patriotism. Why is there this intense effort to control religion in China? I suggest if you look back to the ancient Roman empire, you can find an example of why that is so important to the Communist Chinese Government. It was the policy of the Roman empire that they practice what they called ``religious tolerance.'' You could have any religion you wanted, so long as whatever religious faith you were, you were willing to acknowledge Caesar as the ultimate sovereign. It would demand that, regardless of your faith, you say Caesar is Lord. That is where Christianity ran into problems in the Roman empire--it was the persecuted religion--because Christians wouldn't say Caesar is Lord, the ultimate sovereign. They saw there was a sovereign, a control beyond the Government, beyond Caesar. May I suggest that is exactly the fear of the Chinese Communist Government. While they repressed all political dissent, our own State Department says that all of the political dissidents, all in the democracy movement have been incarcerated, exiled, or executed. So they have eliminated that threat. They see now that which is beyond their control as being the rapid growth of religion. And religion is growing. It is in a tremendous revival. People of faith are multiplying in China. Thus, we find the Chinese Government cracking down on religion because they see that as, in the long term, a threat to their power and their control because here is a body of people who see a loyalty beyond the Government in Beijing. So they crack down. The Chinese Government and the Communist Party have in recent years intensified these efforts to expel religious believers from the Government, the military, and the party, ordering a nationwide purging of believers in January 1995. In spite of this, there is a phenomenal growth occurring among people of faith in China. But I am deeply concerned about the mounting campaign against people of faith in China. The Roman Catholic Church has been made--at least the part of the Roman Catholic Church that recognizes the Vatican and the papal authority in Rome--has been made effectively illegal in China today. Priests, bishops, people of faith have been imprisoned and harassed. Zheng Yunsu, the leader of a Jesus family, a Protestant community in Shandong Province, is one of many behind bars today simply for practicing their faith. He was arrested during a police raid in the community in 1992. Then he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for disrupting--listen to this--for ``disrupting public order and swindling.'' His four sons and other members of the group were also imprisoned. I believe those individuals are prisoners of conscience and prisoners of faith. Such persecution of religious groups has followed a substantial religious revival of China in the past 15 years. The Christian community--much of the expansion has been in religious groups that conduct their activities outside the Protestant and Catholic churches recognized by the Government. When I visited China in January, I attended a church that worshipped openly, but in order to worship openly, they had to be approved, they had to be sanctioned, they had to be registered by the Government. But the explosive growth among believers in China today of all faiths is occurring primarily among the unregistered, the underground church, the house church movement. Here we have a picture that was smuggled out of one of those house churches. You can see, I think, not only the enthusiasm and the faith and the devotion. The picture is worth a thousand words. There are more than a thousand words articulated by that picture. The response of the Chinese Government to this growth of faith has been to crack down, to incarcerate, to persecute, to economically penalize those who would dare to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. That is why we believe we should take a stand. That is what this amendment is all about--condemn the practice, deny visas to those involved in it. I am sorry, but I have a hard time discerning how that could be controversial. Mr. President, these peaceful but unregistered religious gatherings have been raided by police. Gatherings like this have been raided by police. Those attending have been beaten, threatened, and detained. Many of those detained are required to pay heavy fines as a condition for release. Those regarded as ``leaders'' are usually kept in custody and either sentenced to prison terms or administratively detained without charge or trial. I was talking just last night with a lobbyist, a lobbyist for a very major American corporation. If I could mention the name of the corporation, everyone would immediately recognize it as being one of the leading companies in this country. This lobbyist engaged me in a discussion on China. I didn't bring it up, he did. He said, ``I want to talk to you about your convictions on China.'' Then he said, ``Senator, our people in Beijing say that there is religious freedom in China today.'' Then I began to tell about some of the things that are actually going on, some of what I learned even while I was there. I think that there is a tremendous disinformation to say that things are OK. These aren't American views of freedom, these are basic human values. People of faith ought to be able to worship according to the dictates of their conscience and their own hearts, without fear of intimidation, without fear of incarceration, without fear of economic penalty. In January 1994, two national regulations on religious activities came into force. Notably, Mr. President, they banned religious activities which ``undermine national unity and social stability.'' Let me say that again. They banned religious activities which ``undermine national unity and social stability.'' Whatever in the world does that mean? That it the whole point. It is subject to the whims of any local official who wants to interpret it. Under the broad rubric of these two regulations, any activity could be construed as undermining the Chinese Government and, therefore, constitute a threat punishable by prosecution, imprisonment, arrest, and bodily harm. These regulations also require that all ``places of religious activities'' be registered with the authorities, according to the rules formulated by China's Religious Affairs Bureau. This means, in effect, Mr. President, that religious groups that do not have official approval may not obtain registration, and that those involved in religious activities in unregistered places may be detained and punished. In other words, if you started a worship service in your home, you could not get official sanction, be registered, and you would be subject to detainment or punishment. Provided in these new regulations are detention and criminal penalties for any violation. During this past year, police raids on religious gatherings organized by independent groups have continued, with hundreds of Protestants and Catholics reportedly detained as a result. More than 300 Christians were reported to have been detained in what appears to have been a crackdown by local police on unregistered Protestant houses and churches. The evidence is clear that there is an intensified Chinese effort to repress religious liberty. This repression ranges from ransacking homes in Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to destroying or closing 18,000 Buddhist shrines last spring alone. Ministers, priests, and monks are routinely arrested and imprisoned, tortured, and sometimes killed for the mere expression of their faith. Mr. President, I believe not only should we adopt this amendment, which passed with over 350 votes in the House of Representatives, I believe that the President, on his trip to China, should raise this issue to the highest level. I hope he will do that. He said he is not intending to meet with dissidents. I hope he will change his mind. I hope that he will say what the Chinese people can't say, and that while the Chinese people are gagged, our President won't be gagged. He will have the opportunity and I hope he will talk about these issues. Mr. President, in Paul Marshall's critically acclaimed book ``Their Blood Cries Out,'' an authoritative book on religious persecution around the globe, the case of Bishop Su is documented. During Bishop Su's 15 years in China's prison system, he was subjected to various forms of torture. They go through very graphic detail in recounting the kinds of suffering that this bishop endured. Unfortunately, that is not the exception. The State Department's most recent report on religious freedom states: . . . the government of China has sought to restrict all actual religious practice to government-authorized religious organizations and registered places of worship. That is what they have sought to do. Then our State Department goes into a great deal of detail, enunciating exactly the kinds of abuses that are too common in China today. There are only a handful of churches that are open in all of Beijing, not because there are not worshipers or believers, but because of the practice of the Government. The legal provisions requiring registration of all religious groups have been used against various groups, including members of Protestant house churches who organize religious meetings in their private homes without having registered with the authorities. Many of these groups and the members of these groups don't register out of a personal conviction. They don't believe it would be proper. They feel they would be restricting their own faith and what they could say and do; so they don't register. Then they face detainment and fines and harassment by the police. Some house churches have voluntarily suspended their meetings because many members were being harassed, and others have regularly changed premises and meeting times for worship, moving from place to place to avoid detection by the authorities. Some congregations have even stopped singing during the worship time in order to avoid detection. Pressure to register is reported to have increased in the past year. Reports from various areas show that official control over religious activities has been stepped up. Unregistered Protestant churches in Shanghai have been under increased Government pressure since December of 1994 when authorities announced that ``it was illegal to hold religious activities in unregistered places of worship.'' The authorities reportedly threatened to fine any person found attending or leading an unregistered house church meeting. Religious books, religious tapes, and even collection boxes and offering plates have been confiscated by Government officials. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that the human costs are higher for unregistered or unauthorized clergy and believers. It is too high. We should and we must denounce it, condemn it, and speak out against it. Today, hundreds of people are serving long prison sentences in China--Buddhists, Taoists, Moslems, Catholics, and Protestants--for simply practicing their religious faith. The Beijing government sentenced a 76-year-old Protestant leader to 15 years in prison for the ``high crime'' of distributing Bibles. Where do you get a Bible in China? There is a lot of talk about how, today, the Chinese Government permits the printing of Bibles. That is true. They set a quota every year. They allow a certain number to be printed, but they can only be distributed in churches, in places of worship which are officially recognized, sanctioned and registered by the Communist government. That is how you get a Bible in China. So this man, 76 years old, was arrested for distributing Bibles illegally. He was sentenced to 15 years. But it is controversial for us to condemn that with an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization. Somehow, it is controversial to deny visas to those who are perpetrating these kinds of atrocities against religious believers. I am sorry. The Government then sentenced a 65-year-old evangelical elder to an 11-year prison term for belonging to an unauthorized evangelical group. They sentenced a 60-year-old Roman Catholic priest to 2 years of ``reeducation through labor'' for unknown charges. He had previously spent 13 years in prison because of his refusal to renounce the Vatican. The 6-year-old Panchen Lama--the second highest dignitary in Tibetan Buddhism--has been detained for a year and a half, and his whereabouts are unknown. Scores of Tibetan Buddhists who refused to participate in the Communist Chinese sham enthronement of Beijing's ``Panchen Lama'' have been sent to prison. One leading Buddhist spiritual teacher committed suicide rather than to take part in the charade. I have another chart I want to show you. These are simple news accounts that have occurred--all of them within the last 2 weeks. They are reports in the mainstream media during the last 2 weeks. June 14, The Portland Oregonian reported that: Chinese police interrogated and threatened three dissidents who urged President Clinton to press Chinese leaders on human rights during the summit. . . . Police ransacked the homes of Leng and Tang, confiscated the computers, and took the two to a local precinct. This is occurring within weeks of the President's visit. Instead of things getting better, they are rounding up dissidents in preparation for the President's visit. That is how little they comprehend the value of human rights. That is how little they understand what our concerns are in this country. Instead of releasing dissidents, instead of encouraging free expression, they round them up. I think we have all read about the unflattering book published in China about our President. What do they do? They round up the books and don't let the books be in the bookstores when our President visits. That is China today. On June 18, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported that, ``Beijing warned the Vatican not to use the Internet or other media channels to interfere with China's religious affairs policies.'' This is June 18. So it is very current in what the Chinese Government is saying, warning the Vatican not to use the Internet to interfere with their internal, domestic, religious affairs policies. On June 16, the New York Times reported on ``an hour-long documentary on President Jiang Zemin's state visit to the United States last year.'' And it continues. On June 16, the New York Times reported that the Japan Economic News Wire reported that, ``In the run-up of President Bill Clinton's visit to China, a veteran Chinese dissident has been indicted for helping another activist escape to Hong Kong.'' Once again, do you know what gets the publicity? The four, or five, or six high-profile prisoners--I will not use the word ``release'' because they are not released, they are exiled. They are allowed out of prison and sent to the United States. They said, ``Don't return.'' This administration would like to say that is a victory for human rights? We used to say that was a travesty of human rights, if you were released from prison, exiled from your country, and not allowed to go back to your homes and families. This is hailed as a victory for human rights. Think about the five or six released. Just remember. Right now, in preparation for the President's visit, they are rounding up the dissidents so there won't be anything that might be embarrassing to the Chinese Government or to the President. Freedom is embarrassing, you know. June 15, the Asian Pulse reported: U.S. Ambassador to China, James Sasser, said today that many of the sanctions imposed on China by the United States after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre could be lifted in the ``not too distant future.'' The only reason I put this quote in from the Asia Pulse is that we would be giving these signals out, that our Ambassador would be giving these signals out, in view of--this is what they are doing. They are cracking down, they are rounding up the dissidents, they are persecuting believers, and we say we are going to lift the sanctions that were imposed after the massacre. On June 15, the South China Morning Post reported that, ``Dissidents in several areas, including Shanghai and Weifang In Shangdong Province and Xian, the first stop for President Clinton, have complained of harassment. Incidents include home raids, detention, telephone tapping, and confiscation of computers.'' I suppose the appropriate thing when you have a visit of the major heads of states, you clean up the streets, paint the buildings, you put your best foot forward, and put your best face on. But the way the Chinese Government views it is, round up anybody that might say something that could be contrary to the party line. I am going to go back. This is back to June 6. The New York Times reported that ``a bishop in the underground Catholic church has been arrested.'' This received about 2 inches of print in the New York Times. When Wei was released, it was banner headlines. But when the underground bishop was arrested, it got about 2 inches on page A4 of the New York times. But at least it was there. If you will take note, the American people can see that this is what is ongoing. When I have the opportunity to offer this amendment--and I will--when the Senate has an opportunity to work its will on this amendment, I will urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, controversial though it has been deemed, that passed the House of Representatives with over 350 votes, and, in so doing, to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Chinese Government that religious persecution is repugnant, reprehensible, and that such practices will have consequences. I remind you once again that this amendment simply says: We condemn such practices. Not only do we condemn them, to the extent that we are able to identify those who are involved in those practices, we are not going to sanction your travel to this country by granting you a visa. I don't know how well it can be enforced. I know there are human rights groups out there that monitor what is going on in China. I believe that for government officials, which have an egregious record of religious persecution, that we can identify them when credible information can be brought forward. The Secretary of State can make that determination. And it will send a good and solid signal that this is an important issue to the American people, which would deny them the right to travel to this country. Were I permitted to offer an additional amendment that I filed originally back on May 20--a month ago--I would offer it were I able to today. It is, once again, one of those amendments that mirrors the language passed by the House of Representatives several months ago by overwhelming bipartisan margins. This particular language passed 354 to 59. I can't offer it today because it has been regarded as controversial. This is what it would do. It would direct the President to instruct the United States representatives to vote against taxpayers' subsidized loans to the People's Republic of China. The second thing it would do is, it would require United States directors at United States financial institutions, like the IMF and the World Bank, to vote against concessional loans to the People's Republic of China, and it defines concessional loans this way: as those with highly subsidized interest rates, a grace period for repayment of 5 years or more, and maturities of 20 years or more. This is just not something that I offer lightly. I think the facts indicate that the People's Republic of China today has a tremendous infusion of capital, the private sector primarily. In the international sector, they have great infusions of capital. They have an economy that is growing two or three times as fast as the U.S. economy. Given the human rights record of China, it is unconscionable for us to require United States taxpayers to subsidize loans to the People's Republic of China. They have enjoyed ready access to international capital through commercial loans, direct investments, sales of securities, bond sales, and through foreign aid. International commercial lending to the People's Republic of China had $49 billion in loans outstanding from private creditors in 1995. Capital is certainly available without the taxpayer subsidizing it. Regarding international direct investment to the People's Republic of China, from 1993 through 1995 it totaled $97 billion. In 1996 alone, there was $47 billion directly invested in China securities. The Chinese securities--the aggregate value of outstanding Chinese securities currently held by Chinese nationals and foreign persons is $175 billion. From 1993 to 1995, foreign persons invested over $10 billion in Chinese stocks. My point is that there is ample, there is ready, capital available for Chinese economic development. International assistance and foreign aid: The People's Republic of China received almost $1 billion in foreign aid grants, and an additional $1.5 billion in technical assistance grants from 1993 through 1995, and in 1995 received $5.5 billion in bilateral assistance loans, including concessional aid and export credits. Mr. President, despite China's access to international capital and world financial markets, international financial institutions, which have annually provided it with more than $4 billion in loans in recent years amounting to almost a third of the loan commitments of the Asian Development Bank and 17 percent of the loan approvals by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1995, we are asked to continue to subsidize these loans to Chinese corporations. I think it is time that we cease doing this. China borrows more from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank than any other country in the world, and loan commitments from those institutions to China quadrupled, from $1.1 billion in 1985 to $4.3 billion by 1995. In spite of the fact that you have all of this ready capital available for economic development in China, they are utilizing these subsidized loans at an ever greater rate. Mr. President, I believe strongly that America's taxpayer dollars should not be used to create unfair advantages for industry's control by foreign governments. However, when the World Bank lends money to Communist Chinese industries out of its Poverty Fund, that is exactly result that we have. I say to my colleagues that these loans are not only contrary to American interests and the purposes of the Poverty Fund, but they are also unnecessary, given Chinese industry's ready access to foreign investment, including $48 billion in loans from private creditors in 1995 and $97 billion in international direct investments from 1993 to 1995, and $10.5 billion in investment in Chinese stocks by foreigners from 1993 to 1995, and billions more in various types of foreign investments. I find it inappropriate that the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank loaned China $4.3 billion in both 1995 and 1996, and of the 1995 loan amount, $480 million of it, almost $1/2 billion of it came from the World Bank's poverty fund, its concessional loan affiliate, the International Development Association. As concessional loans, these funds are by definition below market and therefore subsidized by those who fund it--the American taxpayer. This amendment will address what I call the ``Chinese wall,'' the wall that was erected between economic and political considerations. Inherent in the bylaws of international financial institutions are provisions that direct the officers of these institutions to neither interfere in the political affairs of any member nor shall they--and I am quoting from their bylaws, shall not interfere in the ``political affairs of any member, nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the members or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions.'' So in the bylaws of these lending institutions, international lending institutions, there is a prohibition from considering the political practices of the applicant. I believe that it is these bylaws that provide a shield behind which numerous international financial institutions continue to provide financing to countries, specifically Communist China, that engage in the most egregious abuses of human rights; so long as they carry out the economic recommendations agreed upon, they can receive the loans. They can continue to receive these subsidized loans. I think that is wrong. I think that should be a consideration, these human rights abuses that are ongoing. This amendment clearly states that ``repressive and oppressive'' regimes should not get a loan. In addition, this amendment clearly sets out substantive principles that should be adhered to by any U.S. national conducting an industrial cooperation project in China. In other words, while it is a sense of Congress and is nonbinding, the amendment would lay out certain principles by which American corporations conducting business, industrial cooperation in China should adhere. During my time in China and since, and visiting with large American corporations doing business in China, I was continually told that an American presence in China would have the effect of transmitting American values. If we just allow these companies to set up shop, sell their products, or put the components together and export them back to our country, because we have a $50 billion trade imbalance with China, if we will do that, if we will increase trade and allow companies to operate there, the result will be a quicker liberalization and a more rapid democratization of China. That is what I have heard for the last 5 years since I came to Congress. I haven't seen it happen. In fact, what I saw was corporate officials who said we have a cozy relationship with Beijing and we have to maintain that cozy relationship in order to do business in China. And so instead of reflecting American values and human rights values and concern about repression and oppression, instead of concern about religious persecution, instead of concern about coerced abortions and American officials standing up and denouncing the Beijing government for these ongoing practices, they say in order to do business over here, we can't say those kinds of things; we can't take those kinds of stands, but let us operate and somehow these values, which we hold deep in our heart--but, unfortunately, they are too often hidden--are going to be transmitted. And so we would just simply, with a sense of the Congress, lay out some principles that I think are important for American companies to utilize if we are, in fact, to help spark the kind of change that we all want to see in China. So we suggest suspending the use of any goods, wares, articles, or merchandise that the U.S. national has reason to believe were mined, produced, or manufactured by convict labor or forced labor, and refuse to use forced labor in the industrial cooperation project. Pretty good principle to start with, don't you think, for our companies operating in China to try to monitor better--some of them are doing a good job, some of them are not doing a good job at all, but to try to monitor those products that are coming from slave labor camps and to pledge they will not use those products. Secondly, to seek to ensure that political or religious views, sex, ethnic or national background involvement in political activities or nonviolent demonstrations, or association with suspected or known dissidents will not prohibit hiring, lead to harassment, demotion, or dismissal, or in any way affect the status or terms of employment in the industrial cooperation project. The second principle of the sense of the Congress would simply say that because somebody spoke out and expressed themselves on a political issue which might be contrary to the party line, they should not be fired or be penalized because of that, not be not allowed to work or have employment. Then we suggest that these projects should discourage any Chinese military presence on the premises of any industrial cooperation project which involves dual-use technologies. The news accounts this morning which said that China has refused to agree to an agreement to retarget their missiles, 13 of which are currently aimed at American cities, I think underscores the importance of that principle for American companies doing business in China, that we are not going to have a military presence on those premises that involve dual-use technologies. And then we suggest that they provide the Department of State with information relevant to the Department's efforts to collect information on prisoners for the purpose of the Prisoner Information Registry. If American companies want to make a difference in operating in China, that is something they can do, help our State Department monitor the human rights abuses that are ongoing. And then finally we suggest they should promote freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information on ideas of all kinds. Nonbinding for the private sector but principles, I think, that lay out what our companies should be utilizing in their efforts to work in China. Mr. President, this Chinese wall that has prohibited consideration of political practices and human rights abuses must come tumbling down. This amendment would help do that. And then if we accept this amendment when it is offered, and I hope we will and I think we will--we should--it will spark a rethinking inside international financial institutions and our own Treasury Department. This rethinking should be based on the United States not wanting to reward repressive regimes, countries like China that commit the most egregious of human rights abuses with taxpayer-subsidized loans. Our watchwords on this floor have been and should be ``freedom and liberty.'' Part of those watchwords is that we not reward regimes with concessional loans, subsidized by the American taxpayer, when these kinds of practices continue. So I am going to urge, when I have the opportunity to offer this amendment and have a vote on that amendment, my colleagues to take that stand, not because the President is going to China but because it is the right thing to do, because it was the right thing to do last year when the House of Representatives voted on it. It is the right thing for the Senate to do. I wish we could have voted on it on May 20 when I filed the amendment. It in no way is meant to embarrass the President. It is an effort to reflect the values of the American people and, as he takes this trip, to buttress his ability to stand in Tiananmen Square and say, ``Congress thinks this is important; the American people believe this is important.'' Mr. President, if I were able to, I would offer a fourth amendment--I had intended to offer a fourth amendment, and when I have the opportunity, I will. It is an amendment I filed June 16. It also is an amendment that mirrors language that passed overwhelmingly on the floor of the House of Representatives. The vote was 401 to 21--401 to 21. It would authorize an appropriation of $22 million for Radio Free Asia and Voice of America for fiscal year 1999. This amendment was deemed controversial, but it passed 401 to 121. It would authorize $22 million for Radio Free Asia and Voice of America. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for Radio Free Asia was $19.4 million. This amendment would surpass the President's request by almost $3 million. Radio Free Asia funding comes out of the United States Information Agency, which is a related agency of the State Department. It is funded through the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. The second thing the amendment would do would be to facilitate a 24- hour-a-day broadcast to China in the Mandarin, Cantonese, and Tibetan dialects as well as other major dialects, including those spoken in Xinjiang. Let's put that chart up. Additional funding for RFA, Radio Free Asia, would also facilitate construction of transmitters in the Mariana Islands and accelerate the improvements to the Tinian Island transmitters so they will be completed by June 30, 1998, instead of January 1, 1999. This map of China is pockmarked with little orange labels. Each one of those orange labels represents a location in China in which the citizens of China have managed to get correspondence out to Radio Free Asia, expressing their appreciation for the work that Radio Free Asia does. The greatest tool that we have in bringing about change in China is to get the truth, to get the message of democracy and freedom, in to the Chinese people. This amendment will be a step toward doing that. If passed, it will assist with the creation of a Cantonese language service with 16 journalists, including 3 based in Hong Kong and 2 roving between the United States and east Asia. The amendment would require the President to report on a plan to achieve continuous broadcasting in Asia within 90 days. I believe this is a simple amendment to understand. It encourages freedom in China, which we all want--freedom in China. We disagree sometimes on methods and strategies, we see different ways to achieve it, but I do believe all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate want to see a free China. I want to say to my colleagues, we should all agree also that reaching Chinese listeners in all dialects, encouraging the free flow of information, can and will serve as the greatest means by which we can get the truth into China. It will be the surrogate media; it will be the substitute for the absent free media in Communist China today. A fundamental prerequisite to political and economic freedom is an informed citizen. However, the Communist Chinese Government has accordingly made censorship and control of information available to its citizens its top priority. The Communist Chinese Government maintains control by simply not letting the people know. It is getting harder and harder to do, because of the Internet and other means of international communications, but they go to great lengths to keep the Chinese people from knowing the truth. Radio Free Asia plays a fundamental role, a vital role, in getting the truth in to the citizens of China. This amendment will help to make that a priority. In addition to China's traditional methods--controlling the media, suffocating secrecy, and misinformation, massive use of wiretapping, informants, and other forms of surveillance to restrict private sources of accurate information--the regime is building an infrastructure for Internet use that will permit the state to filter and monitor information on this freest communication media. It is a perfect example of the priority Communist China places on the political control over economic development. The New China News Agency even censors commercial news from Dow Jones and Reuters. The United States still supports the free flow of information around the globe. This is one means by which we can underscore that. That is what this amendment does. In fact, people now free of communism's grip on the now-defunct Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact attest to the role that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty played as surrogate news services in these countries. These relatively inexpensive, independently run news services served as the best substitute for the free media that was absent in the old Soviet Union. Similarly, Radio Free Asia provides cost-effective surrogate services to permit the free flow of information to the Chinese people. I have come down to this floor time and time again to explain why I believe this administration's policy toward China is misguided. I do not favor a policy of isolation; I favor a policy of true engagement; I fear this administration's policy has not been one of engagement; it has been one of appeasement. We have not engaged them on human rights, we have not engaged them on national security, we really haven't engaged them on trade, because we have a $50 billion trade deficit with this Government. But while I have many disagreements with the President, I applaud his recent remarks concerning Radio Free Asia at the National Geographic Society in a speech last week, I believe it was. In the President's own words, the President said this: I have told President Jiang that when it comes to human rights and religious freedom, China remains on the wrong side of history. . . . In support of that message, we are strengthening Radio Free Asia. It needs to be strengthened. I appreciate the President saying that, and I believe, because of that, he would be glad to support this amendment. I applaud his words, because Radio Free Asia is broadcasting under the banner of truthful information to the lingering Communist lands--specifically, China--and it has been too often underfinanced by this Congress, they have been undermanned, and they have been overworked. I believe that Radio Free Asia's mission is to do for Asia what Radio Free Europe did for Eastern Europe. That mission is to broadcast the truthful information to countries where the Communist governments ban all free expression by their so-called domestic news services. The mission of Radio Free Asia is simply to replicate the kind of radio services, in the Communist countries it targets, that those Communist countries would have, were they really free countries, were the government to allow it, were there not government censorship. I live in northwest Arkansas. The population in Benton and in Washington Counties in northwest Arkansas is probably 250,000 people. In those two counties we have over 20 independently-owned radio stations; population 250,000. I was in the radio business. I got out because that is too competitive--20 radio stations with 250,000 people--but that is the free market. That is the right of every American, every entrepreneur--to go out and scrape and take a loan out, if need be, apply with the FCC, get a license, get a building permit, build that tower, and start a radio station. That is what we did, from ground up. We have 20 radio stations now in that two-county area. When I was in Beijing in January--Beijing, China, one of the largest cities population-wise in the world--there was not one independent, free, operating radio station. That says about all that needs to be said about whether China is really making progress, whether China is on the right side of history. The President was right, they are on the wrong side of history. In all of Beijing, not one independent newspaper. I get mad at the newspapers sometimes in Arkansas. They say things I don't like, or they take a position I don't agree with. Boy, when I look at the alternative, when I look at China today and I think about a city in which all of the newspapers are controlled by the Government, I thank God for that free press. Radio Free Asia, increasing the funds, providing them the resources, ensuring that they are going to be broadcasting in all of the dialects in China and broadcasting around the clock, is the best single step that we can take to bring about the wanted change in China. Mr. President, current U.S.-China policies have been debated, are being debated, and will continue to be debated by this Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle differ on the best paths and avenues to promote and secure freedom and liberty for the Chinese people, but this amendment, although it has been called controversial this morning, although I have not been allowed to offer it this morning, even though the vote would occur next week, this amendment is not controversial. This amendment simply says the greatest means we have of changing China is to get information in. The amendment is not pro-China or anti-China. The amendment is pro- freedom. I am perplexed that we cannot offer it today. The Senate, the Congress, the President, the American people need to send a clear message to China and other Communist countries that the U.S. Congress will take all necessary steps to ensure that freedom has a chance to blossom. I am bothered, frankly, that as we have seen the preparations for the President's trip, it has become a microcosm of the broader China policy. Originally, the President wanted to go to China in November. China said, ``We want you to come in June.'' That is the anniversary, the ninth anniversary, of the Tiananmen massacre, when hundreds of unarmed, innocent democracy protesters were gunned down by the Chinese Government. And the Chinese Government says, ``We want you, Mr. President, to come in June.'' The President agreed. The President originally was going to stop in Japan on this trip, but the Chinese Communist Government objected: ``We don't want you to stop in Japan, we don't want you to stop anywhere, because President Jiang, when he went to the United States, went directly to the United States; that is exactly what we want you to do because we are equals.'' The President said, ``OK, we won't stop in Japan, we'll make a direct trip.'' The President originally was going to have a shorter trip. The Chinese Government said, ``President Jiang stayed 9 days in the United States, and we want a 9-day visit to China.'' We don't want to embarrass, we don't want a loss of face, so we conceded, we acquiesced. The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, over 400, to say, ``Mr. President, please don't be received at Tiananmen Square.'' That is what the elected representatives of the people of this country said, but the Chinese Government said, ``This is where we give official receptions.'' We acquiesced. We didn't want to violate protocol. You know what I thought about protocol, I thought about that student, that portrait, that picture of that lone student standing in the way of oncoming tanks. Boy, did he violate protocol. Thank goodness he did. But we acquiesced once again, and the fact is, I can't find where we didn't acquiesce. It is not a policy of give and take. It is a policy of give and give. These modest amendments, which I will some day be able to offer and on which we will have a vote--such as increasing the funding for Radio Free Asia--is a useful instrument for demonstrating, along with diplomatic and economic ties, concern for the well-being, concern for human rights. Basic human rights in China will always be an integral part of the foreign policy of this country. That is the debate that is ongoing: Are we going to have a foreign policy devoid of values that says trade at any price, or will we, as we always have done, say human rights matters and that values will be reflected in our basic policies of this country toward the nations of the world? I look forward to the continuing debate, and I look forward to the opportunity that we will have to offer these amendments. I reiterate before I yield the floor, Mr. President, the timing of the offering of these amendments is not to embarrass the President. These amendments were announced over a month ago. Most of them were filed a month ago and would have been offered a month ago had we had the DOD authorization on the floor a month ago. Timing is not to embarrass the President on the eve of his trip. I might add that since they are being debated and will be voted on, either before or during the President's trip to China, I hope they will strengthen the President's hand, that they will give him a stronger argument to make on behalf of human rights as he visits with Chinese Government leaders. I hope the President will be able to point to these votes in the House and the Senate as he stands on Tiananmen Square, or as he makes his speech in the People's Congress and he says, ``These are values that are important. Look at the votes in the U.S. Senate, look at what we are doing on Radio Free Asia, on human rights, on coerced abortions, on religious persecution. For the representatives elected by the people of my country, these are important issues, and I am going to speak about them.'' I hope the President will say this to the Chinese Communist Government leaders: ``You may gag your people, but you cannot gag me, and I will speak for them.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the pending business for the purpose of offering amendments.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today represents the ninth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. This is the day that commemorates the culmination of the crackdown--very bloody crackdown--that occurred 9 years ago in Beijing, China. I think it would be wrong for us not to take note of that on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, as freedom-loving Americans, to not forget the lessons that we continue to learn from China. I would like to, in the next few minutes, read an excerpt from a book entitled ``Mandate of Heaven: The Legacy of Tiananmen Square,'' by Orville Schell. This book recounts, among other things, what occurred during the 2 months leading up to the Tiananmen Square massacre and the events that night. I have taken only a few excerpts from that, but I think it will help us to put into perspective the sacrifices that were made, the tragedy that occurred, and I think the tragedy of American foreign policy which today ignores that it was, in fact, Jiang Zemin, mayor of Shanghai at the time, who said that there should not be one ounce of forgiveness shown to those student protesters who dared raise the voice of dissent, who dared to speak for freedom and democracy in China. So I will read from ``Mandate of Heaven: The Legacy of Tiananmen Square'': Although a palpable sense of foreboding hung over the Square, few could bring themselves to believe that the People's Liberation Army might actually harm ``the people.'' Not even under the vindictive Gang of Four had troops opened fire with tens of thousands of demonstrators had spontaneously occupied the Square to mourn the death of Zhou Enlai in 1976. So many ominous-sounding government threats had come to naught since April 15 that most ordinary Chinese were now inclined to view this latest salvo of warnings as more overinflated rhetoric. The triumphs, symbolic and otherwise, of the preceding weeks had given many, especially protesters, an exaggerated sense of their own invincibility. But there were some Chinese who understood that when threatened, the Party would ultimately stop at nothing to preserve its grip on power. They understood the old adage ``When scholars confront soldiers, it is impossible to speak with reason.'' Most of these pessimists were from the older generation of educated Chinese who had learned through bitter experience that the Party rarely allowed such challenges to go unconfronted. ``The Day the Soldiers Enter the City, Then the Blood of the People will Flow,'' declared one banner . . . Around dusk the Flying Tigers began bringing back reports that soldiers equipped with automatic weapons and backed up by armored vehicles were moving toward the city center from several directions at once. In response, the strengthening of barricades reached fever pitch. By the time the first troops neared key intersections on the city's outskirts, an estimated 2 million people were again in the streets. At first, these citizens' brigades continued to rely on the same defensive techniques that they had used two weeks earlier, and by dark, many unarmed units were again bottled up around the city . . . By 10 p.m. the assault from the west was in full swing. As several infantry and armored divisions pushed toward the Military Museum, they soon found their way blocked by a wall of angry citizens and Dare-to-Die squads of workers pledged to defend the students and the Square until death. The juggernaut of military vehicles ground to a halt, allowing government propaganda to cite these instances of hesitation as evidence that the army had exercised a ``high degree of restraint'' while entering the city. Such ``restraint'' did not last long. The next volley of gunfire was aimed over the heads of the resisters. The crowd refused to disperse. Finally, an officer in a jeep was reported to have yelled out through a megaphone, ``Charge, you bunch of cowards! Sweep away this trash!'' A volley of concussion grenades was lobbed into the crowd. Only when steel-helmeted soldiers carrying truncheons and riot shields were ordered to charge did those resisting give way. It was around 11 p.m. before advancing troops approached Muxidi Bridge near the state guesthouse. By then the order to ``go ahead at any cost'' and to shoot at anyone obstructing the soldiers' path had been given. Before soldiers had even arrived at the giant barricade constructed out of articulated city buses, large earthmoving trucks, commandeered minivans, and tons of urban detritus, the first wounded were being rushed on bicycle carts to hospitals. As troops approached the bridge, someone torched the fuel tank of a bus, turning the barricade into a raging wall of fire. The column had no choice but to halt. With Gallic flair, Pierre Hurel, a French journalist writing for Paris Match, described the scene: ``In front of the flaming barricade, facing the soldiers alone, four students with their feet planted wide apart make the heavy air snap with the sound of the waving scarlet banners. In an unbelievable gesture of defiance, they are naked martyrs before a sea of soldiers in brown combat helmets and tense with anger. The silk of their university banners gleams in the fire's light, and behind them a crowd, waiting for the worst, applauds. it is 11:30 p.m. and for the first time tonight, the soldiers have had to pull back.'' As the convey began pushing forward again a short while later, a noise resembling the sound of popcorn popping was suddenly heard over the dim of the crowd. Out of the smoky darkness, troops armed with AK-47s charged the barricades, shooting as they advanced. ``Soldiers were shooting indiscriminately; there were bullets flying everywhere; dead bodies and injured people were lying in the streets,'' reported one anonymous foreign journalist cited in a subsequent Amnesty International report. ``Crowds of residents from the neighboring lanes had left their houses and stood unprotected in the streets. They did not try to hide because they did not seem to realize what was going on. They were in a state of shock and disbelief.'' All along the Avenue of Eternal Peace, equally ferocious battles broke out as citizens stood their ground with an almost religious fanaticism before advancing troops. Bystanders who ran into surrounding alleyways for safety were chased down and sprayed with automatic-weapons fire. Those who tried to rescue the wounded were shot in cold blood. The slaughter was so merciless that rumors began circulating that the soldiers had been administered some kind of drug as a stimulant. By 1 a.m. soldiers had neared the intersection where Xidan crosses the Avenue of Eternal Peace and began lobbying tear- gas canisters into the crowds. Moments later several buses serving as barricades burst into flames. Then another order to fire was given. ``Several lines of students and residents instantly fell,'' claimed one BASF eyewitness. ``Dozens were killed, and several hundred were wounded.'' Yang Jianli, a Ph.D. candidate in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley who was back in China on a visit, watched in horror as these shock troops advanced, firing their automatic weapons as if they were assaulting a heavily armed enemy position. ``Tanks and truckloads of soldiers armed with machine guns were rolling in, one after another, toward the Square,'' he remembered. ``At the intersection we heard perhaps a thousand people shouting, `Down with Fascism!' . . . [Then] flashes spouted from the muzzles of soldiers' rifles. We ran back a bit and threw ourselves on the pavement. `Did they really fire?' I asked H. `I still can't believe it!' Some people continued to stand up, saying nonchalantly, `Don't be frightened, they're only using rubber bullets.' But before they had finished speaking I heard someone scream, `Look out! There's a cart coming through!' Two men with gunshot wounds were being carried away. . . . Suddenly, there was more gunfire, and we dropped to the ground again, my heart jumping from sheer fright.'' ``His blue T-shirt was soaked with blood, and his eyes were blood-red,'' recalled Yang of one outraged citizen. . . . ``Troops have been firing indiscriminately and still people would not move back,'' BBC News Chief Correspondent Kate Adie reported in a television broadcast after visiting both the western and eastern reaches of the Avenue of Eternal Peace. ``Indeed, it was hard at the time to grasp that this army was launching into an unarmed civilian population as if charging into battle. . . . There was not one voice on the streets that did not express despair and rage. `Tell the world!' they said to us.'' Since that 1989 tragedy and this famous photo of a lone student who stood defiantly in front of the line of tanks, there has been every June 4th efforts within China, efforts there at Tiananmen, to remind the world of the tragedy that occurred, of those brutal, visible oppressions, and forcibly removing a voice of freedom that the world has known in generations. I continue from Schell's book as he recounts some of the symbolic gestures that have been made since that original June 4th, 1989. He writes: ``Like an uninterred body, June 4th continued to cry out for an appropriate and respectable barrier.'' There are those, if I might just add, who would like to say we are in a post-Tiananmen era but somehow that chapter has been closed. The fact is the Communist Chinese government in China does not allow that chapter to be closed. So Schell refers to it as an uninterred body which continued to cry out for appropriate and respectable barrier. The yearning that many continued to feel for some sort of commemoration could never be fulfilled by parades or crimson stars fashioned out of potted flowers. But since the government stubbornly refused to acknowledge the tragic significance of what had happened, much less allow for a ceremony at which those who had died could be properly remembered, the Square remained charged with unresolved energy and, like a lodestone, kept drawing defiant demonstrators back into its embrace to engage in solitary acts of guerrilla mourning. Such observances were, or course, politically suicidal. As soon as anyone began such a ritual protest, plainclothes policemen materialized as if out of nowhere. Within moments the offenders were surrounded, seized, and dragged away. Only on those rare occasions when foreign journalists had been alerted in advance or happened to be at the Square for other reasons were such fleeting moments of defiance recorded. But then, like shooting stars in the night sky, these usually nameless protesters would disappear. He writes: On the first anniversary of June 4, a lone figure had walked up to the Monument and nervously fumbled to display a handmade banner; moments later he was seized and taken away. That night [at the university], a young economics student named Li Minqui, who had been active in the outlawed BASF, tried to mark the anniversary by addressing a spontaneous midnight rally on campus where he indignantly referred to China's current leaders as ``wild and savage autocrats'' and called for an elective Government that could supervise the Communist party. Li was not only promptly expelled but arrested, labeled a ``chief instigator of an anti-party conspiracy,'' accused of counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement,'' and sentenced to 2 years in prison. I just think of how many Members of the Senate and how many Members of the Congress would be incarcerated if that were the standard. This one who dared to lift a voice to say we ought to have free elections and called the autocrats ``wild and savage" served 2 years. Schell continues to write: On the second anniversary of the massacre, a young woman dressed in funeral white appeared in front of the Monument to observe a moment of silence. ``I came to remember,'' she told a South China Morning Post correspondent before drifting away just as suspicious undercover agents began to close in. Incidentally, white being the symbolic color of mourning in China, we have chosen the white color, white ribbons to commemorate in mourning those who lost their lives at Tiananmen Square. So that is what happened on the second anniversary. And then Schell writes: In 1992, on the third anniversary of the massacre, a young worker named Wang Wanxing appeared not far from where a new sign warned visitors that it was illegal to lay memorial wreaths in front of the Monument without prior approval. After unfurling a banner calling on Deng to apologize for the crackdown following the protest, he was seized, dragged away and committed to a mental hospital. In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali smuggled out of China a month later Wang asserted that not only was he being held against his will in Shanghai's Ankang Psychiatric Hospital for the criminally insane, but he was being forced to take psychotropic drugs. Computer hackers were also busy that spring waging electronic warfare by introducing rogue viruses into software programs used on government computers. One such virus caused the words ``Remember June 4'' to appear on display terminals while another flashed the slogan ``Bloody June 4'' as soon as computers at certain state enterprises were booted up. Despite increased campus surveillance, on May 28, 1991, [university] students managed to hang cloth streamers out of two dorm windows declaring ``We Will Never Forget June 4.'' Leaflets recalling the events of 1989 also appeared in the student canteen. An excerpt from the leaflets said this: Those were days that woke the heart and moved the spirit. Then the hue and cry became the sound of suffocation in a pool of blood. There are those who would say that to call the world's attention to the tragedy of Tiananmen Square in 1989 is empty moralizing on the part of self-righteous Americans who want to impose our views of freedom and liberty upon the rest of the world and other cultures. May I say to those who would argue such that liberty and freedom are not American values, that it is not empty moralizing to point to a young Chinese student who defied the symbols of oppression and onrushing tanks. And I would say to those who would say don't talk about Tiananmen Square and don't talk about the massacre, we must not forget that these are not American values: these are universal human values and human rights. For us to sacrifice what this Nation has always stood for on the altar of free trade, on the altar of commercial and corporate profits is unconscionable. Jiang Zemin was quoted on the front page of the People's Daily 3 weeks after the massacre. This is what he said. He was mayor of Shanghai at the time, not President of China. But this is what he said: Toward these cruel enemies-- That is that young man standing in front of the tanks-- there must not be even one percent of forgiveness. If we go easy on them, we shall commit an error of historic proportions. That is the man whom the President is going to meet and greet in Beijing in a few short weeks, the one who said that toward these cruel enemies we dare not show even one percent of forgiveness. And they didn't, true to his word. Nine years later, Jiang is President of China and the students whom he called the cruel enemies, many remain imprisoned, those who survived. And Jiang, true to his word, showed not 1 percent of forgiveness. He has never apologized. He has never acknowledged the cruel, inhumane, and barbaric response of the Government at Tiananmen Square. The Chinese Government has never investigated, they have never even investigated this tragic incident; they have only defended the crackdown and the killing of hundreds of students as an appropriate response to peaceful dissent. So this man, Jiang Zemin will be the leader greeting our President, this man who declared not 1 percent of forgiveness. And more recently, lest you think he may have changed his mind and changed his attitude and lest we are under the misimpression that suddenly the Government of China has grown compassionate and that, in the words of President Clinton, they now are becoming a thriving democracy--lest we think that, President Jiang, when asked by Barbara Walters how he looked back on the events of 1989, replied, ``It's much ado about nothing.'' So on this anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, we all need to remind the world we will not forget and we will not allow the courageous sacrifice of those hundreds of students at Tiananmen Square to be demeaned, to be disrespected and to be devalued. The Washington Post, in an editorial today entitled ``China: Two Views,'' speaks of a view that I would share: A strikingly different view from inside China, from someone with pretty fair credentials to judge China's practices, Bao Tong, 65, was Chief of Staff of China's premier and Communist Party chief until he was jailed in 1989. Why was he jailed, by the way? He was jailed: Because he opposed the crackdown against protesting students in Tiananmen Square. Mr. Bao spent 7 years in prison, three of them incommunicado, showing that China has a ways to go when it comes to rule of law. He now lives under house arrest but recently gave an interview to the Post's Steven Mufson and John Pomfret. Mr. Bao challenged the notion that economic strength, in the absence of real democratization, inevitably will make China more benign. By the way, let me repeat what he challenged, because it is the very thesis espoused by those who say constructive engagement is going to bring about change in China. This is the very theory espoused by those who say, ``We will just trade sufficiently, we will increase trade and do enough increased commerce with China, and everything will be better.'' So he challenged the notion that economic strength in the absence of real democratization inevitably will lead China to be more benign. China ``has already gone mad twice in the last 40 years,'' he said, referring to the cultural revolution and the Tiananmen massacre. ``You have to ask yourself a question. What will it do on the international scene? Is it a source of stability or a potential source of instability? When it doesn't have enough power, its attitude will be restrained. But once it develops and becomes strong, what kind of role is it going to play without a complete structural change?'' That is the question I would pose. For all of the advocates of the current administration's policy, I would pose this question raised by this very knowledgeable individual, Mr. Bao, who himself has spent 7 years incarcerated. The question he poses: Once China develops, opens, and becomes strong, what kind of role is it going to play without a complete structural change? What he means by ``complete structural change'' is democratization. It is his argument that economic development in China, the embrace of free markets, and the embrace of market capitalism will not be sufficient to make them benign, to make them a partner in world peace, and that that will not happen without a structural change--free elections, freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion-- that until those things become realities in China, then we cannot expect that there are going to be responsible citizens in the international stage of affairs. The Post editorial concludes: Mr. Clinton should meet with dissidents when he visits Beijing later this month. A sit-down with Bao Tong, if the government would release him from house arrest long enough, might be a useful addition to the president's official schedule. And I suggest it certainly would. So I want to conclude on this anniversary of an event that should never, never, never be forgotten, by making this plea: Mr. President, delay your trip to China. There are ongoing investigations; there are ongoing hearings. So, please, we are not talking about isolating China. It could not happen if we wanted it to. We are not talking about breaking off contacts, dialog and communications with China. But we are saying, under the current cloud and with all of the questions about the web of interrelationships between the Chinese Government, the American administration, and corporate America and multinational corporations-- delay this trip. Then second, Mr. President, if you must go, if you must go ahead with this planned trip, then I plead with you to express the desire of millions of Americans by not going and not being received at Tiananmen. As this young man took his stand as a symbol of freedom against the symbols of oppression, I ask our President, take one small stand by not going to Tiananmen Square; not being received, simply saying: Mr. Jiang Zemin, I will not be received where these students were slain. I will not show disrespect and disdain for the sacrifice that they made by being received at a State visit on that location. To be received there is to demean and devalue the stand those students took. Third, I plead with you, Mr. President, that if you insist on going to China, that you should insist on meeting with the families of those champions of democracy who were either slain or remain in prison. I ask that as our President goes, and if he goes, that he should forcefully denounce the repression and the human rights abuses ongoing in China; if he goes to Tiananmen Square that his message should be this: Never again. And in the spirit of Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, let him say, ``This is wrong. Never should it happen again.'' I ask that in China he visit with house church leaders, those who, because of their conscience and because of their religious convictions, have not registered with the Communist Chinese Government and, because they have not registered, because they have not signed up and received official sanction by the Government, stand in harm's way, stand in jeopardy of losing their freedom. I ask that our President visit with banned journalists, for there are no free newspapers. There are no independent journalists. There are no expressions of dissent against the Communist Chinese Government. So, Mr. President, meet with those journalists who would like to have a newspaper, who would like to be able to write a column, who would like to be able to freely express their views of freedom and democracy, but are not allowed to because of the current regime. Meet with them. Hear their story. Take your stand for freedom. And then I ask that before you leave for Beijing, if you must go, that you sign the China sanctions package that has already passed the House of Representatives by a huge, overwhelming bipartisan majority. Some of those provisions have already been added to our State Department authorization bill which we will be debating, hopefully, next week. Some of those have already been set. But I ask that the President sign those and, in so doing, express sincerity in wanting to decry the human rights abuses that are going on. Let me just conclude. In a Washington Post article, not an editorial but a news article today on the Tiananmen anniversary, the article, a Michael Laris report, concludes: . . . China has not yet turned irrevocably toward a liberal political approach. [That's an understatement.] It maintains a massive state security apparatus, which monitors the private affairs of anybody it deems a threat to the Communist Party's monopoly on political power. The jails hold more than 2,000 political prisoners, including 150 or so arrested after the Tiananmen Square protests. Among the 200,000 other people in labor camps, at least some are political offenders. [I assume yesterday] Early this evening at the Beijing University bulletin board, which was a center of protest information in 1989, a woman read announcements of lectures on the environment and the Asian financial crisis. ``Many of my friends think those students were foolish,'' she [this student] said. ``I think they were very brave. I wish more people now had that much passion. Some people now have the same passion, but they know not to express it in the same way.'' For those who believe it is all better now in China, listen to the words of this student who says the students in China today have learned, passion for freedom they may have, but if they cherish being free, if they cherish the right to be a student, if they don't want to be incarcerated, they better not express it as these students did 9 years ago today. So to all freedom-loving Americans--not as Republicans and not as Democrats--but to all freedom-loving Americans, we say to those Chinese who love freedom as well: We will not forget what happened June 4, 1989. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Am I further correct that the States that have low per capita income--because almost 60 percent of this will fall on those earning under $30,000 a year, States like Arkansas, which is ranked in the lower 5 or 10 percent of income in the Nation--that this would fall disproportionately upon those lower-income States?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator will yield for one final question, as I listened to his comments, they reflected my own feelings--his concern about low-income Americans. It struck me that those who have professed to be the greatest defenders of the poor are those who seem to be the proponents of this massive tax increase upon working poor Americans. But the Earned-Income Tax Credit Program is a program designed to assist those who are working Americans, low-income working Americans, to prevent them from falling into dependency and being on the welfare system. Is there anything in this base bill that would, in a sense, compensate those low-income working Americans who are going to see this very confiscatory tax imposed upon them through this dramatic increase in the price of cigarettes, to assist them in reforming the EITC Program or in some way offsetting these additional taxes that they will be paying? Or is this an absolute, real loss of consumable income for those who are most poor in our society?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield for a question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I presided the previous hour, and I was fascinated by some of the information that the Senator has been providing our colleagues and the American people. Did I hear the Senator correctly that 60 percent of the increased taxes in the base bill would fall upon lower-income Americans?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. For my benefit, how much in the base bill would a pack of cigarettes increase?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Two dollars and what?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would the consumer buying a package of cigarettes actually see the price go up that much?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. For a family of three, let's suppose, a mom and dad and a child, in which one or both smoke two packs a day between them or separately--but two packs a day--then we are taking $5 a day, $1,500 a year, away from their consumable income. Is my math approximately correct on that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. So even with a $1.10 increase, we are looking at better than $2 a day, or a $600, $700 increase?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I did a little focus grouping in Arkansas where I just asked people--one lady had six children, five of whom smoke. They are between the ages are 35 and 40, grown children. I asked her would they quit smoking if it went up $1.50 a pack. She laughed. She said, ``No, they won't. They are addicted, and they wouldn't do it.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I could ask the Senator from Missouri, if a family is making $30,000, with children--and there are many of those in Arkansas, many, many, tens of thousands--assuming the budget is tight already, they are having a hard time making ends meet, that every dollar is already spent, where then would you anticipate them cutting back to pay that additional tax for cigarettes that is envisioned in this proposal?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. With this very dramatic tax increase on low and middle income families, some people could loose their health insurance, end up on Medicaid conceivably?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator will yield for a further question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Last weekend I read a 35-page summary of the 750-page original bill, but with the changes that have been envisioned--and the Senator has mentioned this in his remarks --how much would be going overseas for smoking cessation and education programs overseas? How much was that?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did I hear the Senator correctly in describing this as a kind of foreign aid bill, at least to some extent?