Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Am I correct in understanding that this would be a massive transfer of wealth from the lower-income Americans to citizens--people who are not even citizens of this country?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Of course I appreciate that. I don't smoke. I have never taken any money from any of the tobacco companies. I know anybody who objects to this bill will be portrayed as being a defender of tobacco companies. I have never taken any. But my question for the Senator would be. Has there been any study as to what kind of fiscal impact this would have on State and local governments? And is there a potential of it undermining the revenue base that local governments would have because of the increased taxation at the Federal level?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today there will be a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1415, the tobacco legislation. It is hoped that Members will come to the floor to debate this important legislation and other amendments under short time agreements. Rollcall votes may occur prior to the 12:30 policy luncheons, and Members should expect those throughout today's session in order to make good progress on the tobacco bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in thanking our visiting Chaplain for the opening prayer today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, last week the Senate, by adopting two of the remaining eight House-passed China provisions, I believe took an important first step in reversing this Nation's failed, flawed and counterproductive policy of so-called ``constructive engagement'' with the People's Republic of China. The first amendment we adopted last week, an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, requires the Department of Defense to monitor enterprises which are owned by the People's Liberation Army and gives the President increased authority to take action against these companies should circumstances warrant. It does not mandate the President to act, but it would give him enhanced authority to act should the evidence warrant it. The second amendment we adopted gives the U.S. Customs Service increased funding and authority to stop the importation of goods produced in Chinese slave labor camps. The importation of goods produced by slave labor has been prohibited in this country for half a century, and yet the practice is continuing, unfortunately, and thus, this enhanced monitoring and enhanced authority for the Customs Service is essential. These were two very, very important amendments, I believe, but there are six bills still remaining in the Foreign Relations Committee. I believe the Foreign Relations Committee will be taking those bills up tomorrow. I hope they will. But the votes that we cast last week could not possibly have been more timely. Their importance is best seen by new information uncovered last Friday by the New York Times, one day after we cast those two important votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That story, covered by the New York Times, and now by every major newspaper in the country, revealed that Johnny Chung, the central figure in the Justice Department's campaign finance investigation, has now told investigators that a large part of the nearly $100,000 that he gave to the DNC and to other Democratic causes in the summer of 1996 came from the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China. Let me say that again. A large part of the $100,000--in fact, $80,000 of it--went to the DNC, and that money came from the Chinese Red army. This was the front-page story in the New York Times on Friday, May 15. Then inside the newspaper the headline is: ``Fund-raiser is Said to Tell of Donations from China Military to Democrats.'' This is a very, very serious allegation that Mr. Chung has made in his cooperation with the Justice Department alleging that this money came not just from Chinese sources, but came from the Chinese Red military. Worse yet, this was no low-level PLA effort. It wasn't low- level figures in the People's Liberation Army, but according to Chung, these monies were provided by a Chinese lieutenant colonel and aerospace executive whose father, General Liu, was at the time China's top military commander and a member of the leadership of China's Communist Party. This reaches to the very top echelon of the Chinese Government and to the very top levels of the PLA command system. Their very top leadership apparently hatched, planned, and carried out this so-called ``China plan.'' Let us not forget, Mr. President, that this whole investigation was started after an interception of a telephone communication suggesting that the People's Republic of China was considering a covert plan to influence United States elections. It would now appear that this so- called ``China plan'' was actually carried out by the top leadership of the PLA and the Communist Party. Why would China and the PLA want to influence American elections? What motive would they have to pick and choose winners and losers in our own Presidential sweepstakes? The answer appears to be given in this very same New York Times article: At the time (of these payments from the PLA), President Clinton was making it easier for American civilian communications satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets, a key issue for the PLA and for Liu's company, which sells missiles for the military and also has a troubled space subsidiary. There was a very, very vested interest by Lieutenant Colonel Liu in ensuring that Chinese rockets would be able to launch American satellites. Thus, while the DNC and the Democratic Party was being flooded with money from the head of the PLA, the head of the Democratic Party, President Clinton, was making it easier for the PLA to receive advanced technological support for its missile and space programs. The only question left to be answered seems to be, was it a quid pro quo? To put the harmful effects of this ``missiles for money" trade into context, or more appropriate, the ``PLA Gate,'' it is important to note that until last year, China lacked the intelligence or technologies necessary to manufacture boosters that could reliably strike such long distances. This made China a weaker adversary. In fact, in a debate that I had on the campus of the University of Mississippi at Oxford, a Firing Line debate that was carried nationwide by public television, Dr. Kissinger made this statement: I also do not believe that it is possible to argue that China can represent a military threat to the United States for the next 20 years. I remember very vividly Secretary Kissinger making that statement. He almost ridiculed and disdainfully dismissed those who said that China could pose a military threat to the United States at any time in the next two decades. That is a direct quote from the Firing Line transcript. My how time flies, because now we find, less than a year later, that all but five of the Chinese nuclear missiles are aimed and directed at the United States and, in fact, they do pose a threat. According to this article in the Washington Times, China targets nukes at the United States, according to a CIA report that was recently released. China now appears to pose a very real threat to the United States. This article noted that 13 of China's 18 long-range strategic missiles with ranges exceeding 8,000 miles and have single nuclear warheads are aimed at the United States. These missiles are in addition to China's growing arsenal of other weapons that can now reach the United States, many of which are mentioned in this article regarding the CIA report. How could one of this country's leading China experts and most respected foreign policy adviser have been so far off when Secretary Kissinger said it would take two decades? Like those of us in the Senate, Dr. Kissinger may not have known that two U.S. companies, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronic, illegally gave China space expertise during cooperation on a commercial satellite launch which could be used to develop an accurate launch and guidance system for ICBMs. I am sure Dr. Kissinger would not have foreseen that this administration, in the middle of investigating this illegal transfer, would allow Loral to launch another satellite on a Chinese rocket and provide them the same expertise at issue in the criminal case. Nor is it likely that Dr. Kissinger would know that Motorola, under a waiver from this administration, has also been involved in ``upgrading'' China's missile capability, this according to the chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Technology. The New York Times ran a follow-up article today providing some insight into this administration's policy on China and the transfer of sensitive technology. According to the article that appeared today in the New York Times, United States and China industry groups urged that satellite technology be taken off the list of banned exports, known as the munitions list. The State Department sided with the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies, and the President's key advisers and noted that satellite technology holds secrets that hold ``significant military and intelligence'' information and thus should remain banned for export. That was the position of key advisers to the President. That was the position of the Department of State and the Defense Department. The Clinton administration, though, sided with business groups and transferred this decision away from the State Department and left the decision up to the Commerce Department, which was then headed by his close friend, Ron Brown. In the end, satellite technology was removed from the munitions list. China was free to negotiate with U.S. businesses to obtain assistance with its space program. The People's Liberation Army is engaged in a massive military buildup which has involved a doubling since 1992 of announced official figures for military spending by the People's Republic of China. This is incredible. It is amazing that we would at this time be circumventing our own ban on technology transfers and the launching of American satellites and the sharing of that valuable, valuable missile technology at the very time we see this massive military buildup. The PLA is working to coproduce the SU-27 fighter with Russia. It is in the process of purchasing several substantial weapons systems from the Republic of Russia, including the 633 model of the Kilo-class submarine and the SS-N-22 Sunburn missile system specifically designed to incapacitate United States aircraft carriers and Aegis cruisers. Mr. President, this increasingly aggressive military, the PLA, which cracked down on its own citizens in Tiananmen Square, killing over 2,000 Chinese students, that we are aware of, which held threatening war games off the coast of Taiwan, closing two of its largest ports, which has taken over disputed islands once claimed by the Philippines, which now has all but five of its long-range nuclear missiles pointed at the citizens of the United States, is being coddled, pampered and pandered to and appeased by this administration. The gross irony here is that while the administration continues to allow the transfer of technology to China and the PLA, the People's Liberation Army, U.S. consumers are unwittingly funding China's military by purchasing items sold by PLA-owned enterprises operating in the United States. The PLA operates literally thousands and thousands of businesses. It is unlike any other military in the world. It is not just funded from the general revenue of the Chinese budget, the Chinese Government budget. It rather is funded partially through enterprises and business operations by the military itself. It is estimated that the PLA earns between $2 billion and $4 billion annually through the many enterprises that it operates that deal in nonmilitary commodities, and that these enterprises profit handsomely from their activities right here in the United States of America. A report released earlier this year indicated that vast quantities of goods, as varied as toys, ski gloves, garlic, iron weight sets, men's pants, car radiators, glassware, swimsuits, and much more, are being sold to U.S. consumers by PLA-owned firms and almost always without the knowledge of the American consumer. Mr. President, this country was shocked last week by India's explosion into the nuclear family. We were all dismayed that a new threat to world security loomed on the horizon in India's completed nuclear tests. Why? Why would a country suffering from rampant poverty and class instability choose to spend its limited and valuable resources on a new nuclear weapon's program? The answer, I believe, lies in the failed policies of this administration. It was just over 35 years ago that China last invaded India in an attempt to take over disputed territory. Since that time, there has been an uneasy and often hostile relationship between India and China, its larger neighbor to the north. In addition to China's own military buildup, China was assisting other enemies of India in the development of their own nuclear and military capabilities, particularly the nation of Pakistan. In fact, the People's Liberation Army transferred technology relevant to the refinement of weapons-grade nuclear material, including the transfer of ring magnets, to the nation of Pakistan. Mr. President, as this country moves closer to China, as we continue to assist its military machine, as we continue to turn a blind eye to China's transfer of technology to Pakistan, why would we be surprised that India would move to arm itself with nuclear weapons? Why are we surprised that a country that is surrounded by a much larger and better armed neighbor, that that nation would develop a defense similar to our own policy of ``mutually assured destruction,'' a policy that prevailed during the cold war? Mr. President, it was U.S. policy that led to these tragic, sad developments in that entire arena in the world. With all but five of China's long-range nuclear missiles pointed at the citizens of the United States, it is obvious that the increasingly aggressive People's Liberation Army views the United States as its most serious adversary. It is a sad paradox that U.S. consumers are unwittingly funding the military that has their hand on the nuclear buttons which threaten our very existence and that our leadership is accepting money in return for relaxed controls on the transfer of military technology, or at least that is the allegation that has been made. That is the source and the subject of the investigation that is ongoing. Not only is China an increasing threat internationally, but within their borders they continue to oppress their own people. The latest State Department report on human rights, to which I have referred repeatedly, says and shows that China is still a major offender of internationally recognized human rights. You pick the category, whether it is coerced abortion, the so-called one-child policy, whether it is slave labor and the refusal to allow international inspection teams to go in and look at these slave labor camps, whether it is the repression of all free expression or criticism of the Government, or whether it is other forms of human rights abuses like the repression of freedom to worship by religious minorities in China, you pick the category, and you will find that there is an absolute intolerance of freedom and that these ongoing abuses show us that they have not made progress under the current policy. According to a recent report in the Washington Post entitled, ``U.S.- China Talks Make Little Progress on Summit Agenda,'' we find that the United States is getting very few concessions from China relating to the inspection of the technology that we share with them. We are getting very few concessions on limiting the proliferation of technology to third parties like Iran. We are getting very few concessions on human rights conditions, particularly in the nation of Tibet. So as we make our agenda, as we make the plans for the President's trip to China, what are we getting? Out of the negotiations that have been going on, what kind of concessions do we find from the Chinese Government? There have been four major high-profile prisoners who have been released. There are thousands that remain incarcerated, thousands who remain languishing in Chinese laogai camps, yet we are expected to say there is progress in human rights because four high-profile individuals have been released. So, Mr. President, with your administration currently under investigation by your own Justice Department relating to this ``missiles for money'' transfer, it is inconceivable to me how you can go forward with your planned June 24th trip to China. The cloud now brewing over your administration's relationship with the leadership of the People's Republic of China makes suspect any agreements that may be reached or any statements that may be made during this summit. Mr. President, until this cloud of criminal and ethical investigations has blown over and been resolved, I urge you to delay your planned trip in June, and to postpone it. It is imperative that this country present a unified foreign policy. It is imperative that we be united in our international relationships, and particularly our relationship with this, the most populous nation on the globe. But in order to have that kind of unity, one that is free of partisanship, one that is untainted by allegations of illegal dealing, it is imperative that this planned trip in June be postponed. It is hard for me to imagine with such a cloud over our relationship with China, with such allegations of an organized, planned, if you will, conspiracy by the Chinese Government to influence the outcome of American elections, how any good could come from this trip to China at this stage. The atmosphere surrounding this summit has now been polluted. Mr. President, here again is what we know. We know that the CIA intercepted a call which hinted at a plan by China to influence our elections. And may I say, my colleague, Senator Thompson, should feel vindicated. And those who ridiculed his allegation in this regard should apologize to him personally, I believe. The American people owe him a debt of gratitude for his untiring efforts to reveal this nefarious plan. We know that the CIA intercepted that call. We know that Johnny Chung has testified that the PLA, through one of their top leaders, General Liu, provided $80,000 to the DNC and $20,000 to other Democratic causes. We know that at the same time as these moneys were being given to the DNC, the same time those contributions were being made, Loral and Hughes provided key missile technology to China and the PLA--under a waiver granted by the Clinton administration. We know that the State Department has said that this technology transfer ``harmed our national security.'' We know this, that an executive at Motorola also claims they are assisting China's missile program under a waiver from the Clinton administration. We further know that the Clinton administration shifted the key decisionmaking authority on satellite and missile technology from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which was a much more China-friendly agency or Department. We know this, that China transferred key military nuclear technology to Pakistan and to other rogue states like Iran, all without any action or denunciation by this administration. We know that all but five of China's long-range nuclear missiles are pointed at the United States. We know that the PLA continues to profit from selling consumer goods in the United States. And we know that the PLA continues to profit from slave labor. We know that human rights continue to be abused in China and that this administration has soft-pedaled very serious human rights concerns. This is an ugly list, detailing a tangled relationship that now appears to have forever damaged our national security, a relationship that now may have escalated the risk of nuclear war on the Asian continent and that will forever make it more difficult to keep the nuclear genie in a secure bottle. This relationship must be investigated. I believe appropriate Senate committees will be doing that investigation. We know that the Justice Department is continuing this investigation, but all questions relating to how this relationship progressed must be answered, and the President should delay and postpone his planned trip to China until those answers are forthcoming. The American people deserve to have those answers. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I only point out that I think it would be very appropriate to consult with and visit with the appropriate chairman. I remind my distinguished colleague that this is the exact language that passed by a 405-10 vote in the House, and I would regard that as pretty bipartisan and noncontroversial. That language passed out of the House last November and has been referred to the appropriate committees, where it has--if I might use the word-- ``languished'' for several months without any action. So it is for that reason I think it is imperative that the Senate have an opportunity to express its will on something the House expressed its opinion on months ago.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I may have missed this. Would you clarify it, was this the language that was adopted last year?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 2387 which I call up at this time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my good friend and colleague, Senator Abraham of Michigan, be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today's debate is about the security of the United States. The underlying question in the debate today on the Defense Department authorization bill concerns the safety and security of the citizens of the United States, and that is why I am offering an amendment that will give the President increased powers to confront America's greatest threat, or certainly America's greatest external threat, and that is the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China. My amendment mirrors exactly the language that passed overwhelmingly on the floor of the House of Representatives last November. This language, in bill form, in the House passed by a vote of 405 to 10. The amendment would do two things: First, it would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence and the Director of the FBI, to maintain a current list of Chinese military firms operating directly or indirectly in the United States. This list, consisting strictly of PLA- owned companies, would be updated regularly in the Federal Register. Secondly, the amendment would give the President enhanced authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to take action against Chinese military-owned firms if circumstances warrant, including the President would have the authority to freeze assets or otherwise regulate these firms' activities. Thus, if a PLA-owned firm is found to be shipping missile-guidance components to a rogue state like Iran, the President would have the authority to take immediate action against a United States subsidiary of that firm which might, for example, be selling sporting goods in the United States. I should note that this amendment would not require the President to take any action whatsoever. It would simply enhance his ability to do so should he believe that the circumstances warrant that action. Let me explain the reasoning behind this amendment and why it is so critical, I believe, that the Senate adopt this amendment. Mr. President, last week I came to this floor to discuss the growing threat that the People's Republic of China poses to the citizens of the United States. I discussed the recent CIA report covered in the Washington Times on May 4, 1998, under the headline, ``China Targets Nukes At U.S.'' This article and this CIA report noted that 13 of China's 18 long-range strategic missiles, with ranges exceeding 8,000 miles, have single nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. These missiles, which are under the control of the PLA, with PLA officers manning their nuclear buttons, are in addition to China's 25 CSS-3 missiles, with ranges of more than 3,400 miles; its 18 CSS-4 missiles, with ranges exceeding 8,000 miles; and its planned DF-31, with a range exceeding 7,000 miles. Until last year, China lacked the military intelligence necessary to manufacturer boosters that could reliably strike at such long distances. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has reported that two U.S. companies-- Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics--illegally gave China space expertise during cooperation on a commercial satellite launch which could be used to develop an accurate launch and guidance system for ICBMs. This issue is still under investigation. But while it was still under investigation, in February, Loral launched another satellite on a Chinese rocket and provided the Chinese with the same expertise that is at issue in the criminal case. The chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Technology has received word from an unnamed official at Motorola that they, too, have been involved in ``upgrading'' China's missile capability. Interestingly, this executive claims that the work is being done under a waiver from this administration, thus circumventing all bans and restrictions on such technology transfers. The People's Liberation Army is engaged in a massive military buildup which has involved a doubling since 1992 of announced official figures for military spending by the PRC. We do not know how much may be spent, how much investment there may be in their military establishment that is not released for official consumption, but the official public figures indicate a doubling of that expenditure since 1992. The PLA is working to coproduce the SU-27 fighter with Russia and is in the process of purchasing several substantial weapons systems from Russia, including the 633 model of the Kilo-class submarine and the SS- N-22 Sunburn missile system specifically designed to incapacitate U.S. aircraft carriers and Aegis cruisers. So the question arises, Mr. President, how does the People's Liberation Army fund the ongoing arms race? By selling its technology to rogue states is one means by which they do it, selling arms, or at least attempting to sell arms, to U.S. gangs in our inner cities and selling CDs, socks, consumer electronics, and scores of other commercial items to U.S. consumers. For example, the People's Liberation Army has contributed to the proliferation of technologies relevant to the refinement of weapons- grade nuclear material, including transferring ring magnets to Pakistan. Additionally, the PLA and its associated defense companies have provided ballistic missile components, cruise missiles, chemical weapons ingredients, to Iran, a country that the executive branch has repeatedly reported to this Congress is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world today. I point to this chart. The source is the Office of Naval Intelligence, March of 1997. They reported: Discoveries after the Gulf War clearly indicate that Iraq maintained an aggressive (W)eapons of (M)ass (D)estruction procurement program. And then they point out: A similar situation exists today in Iran with a steady flow of materials and technologies from China to Iran. This exchange is one of the most active weapons of mass destruction programs in the Third World, and is taking place in a region of great strategic interest to the United States. So we have, I think, very clear, overwhelming evidence that China continues to export technology, nuclear technology as well, and in so doing places at risk the national security of the United States. They also are funding the arms buildup in China, not only by selling weapons to rogue states like Iraq and Iran, but also there is evidence that they are trying to actually sell weapons produced in the People's Republic of China to gangs in the United States. In May 1996, the U.S. authorities caught the People's Liberation Army enterprise entitled Poly Technologies--a PLA-owned and operated enterprise--they were caught by U.S. authorities, and the civilian defense industrial company, Norinco, that is also involved, the U.S. authorities caught these two companies attempting to smuggle 2,000 AK- 47s into Oakland, CA, and offering to sell urban gangs shoulder-held missile launchers capable of taking out a 747. Communist authorities, upon capture of these individuals, punished only four of them--four low-level arms merchants--and they did so, sentencing them May 17, 1997, to brief prison terms. I would suggest and I suspect that the prison terms given to these merchants of arms to the young people of this country were far less than the prison terms that have been exacted upon those prisoners of conscience, those who dared to speak up against the oppressive regime that controls the largest nation in the world. Eight years was given to Wang Dan for his support of the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square almost 9 years ago in addition to the 12 years that he was recently serving for supporting democracy in China. It is estimated that the PLA earns $2 billion to $4 billion a year in earnings through the many enterprises that it operates that deal in nonmilitary commodities and that these enterprises profit handsomely from their activities in the United States. A report released earlier this year indicated that vast quantities of goods, as varied as toys, skis, garlic, iron weight sets, men's pants, car radiators, glassware, swimming suits, and many more such commercial domestic items are being sold to U.S. consumers by PLA-owned firms. This chart indicates--and I will quote from this chart regarding the PLA-affiliated companies and their operation in the United States. This comes from the Institutional Investor, July of 1996: ``And we find that military-affiliated companies can be found in virtually every part of the Chinese economy with the most rapid expansion occurring in the lucrative service industries. Though the PLA enterprises are scattered throughout the economy, they have carved out niches in the eight areas to the right''--including transportation, vehicle production, pharmaceuticals, hotels, real estate development, garment production, mining and communications. Some of these products are being exported--which becomes a rich source of revenue for the People's Liberation Army. Even those products and those services that are sold domestically to the Chinese people become an unaccounted for subsidy, if you will, for the arms race, in the development of the PLA military strength and might. So I believe this should be of great concern to us as we continue to see the PLA fund the arms race. I point out that the Chinese defense industrial trade organizations have a broad, broad interrelationship with the industries in China. This chart shows the web of PLA-owned enterprises that operate in the United States and around the world. All of the companies on the left, in the peach color, are companies that have been documented by our Defense Intelligence Agency as being directly owned by the People's Liberation Army. The ones to the other side, in the yellow, are their defense industrial base. Some of them have indirect connections also, but they are not directly owned by the People's Liberation Army. This next chart I believe shows the chain of command for companies like China Poly Group, China Carrie Corp., and other well-known Chinese companies and their interrelationship with the government and the PLA and the Communist Party. In fact, the Communist Party Central Military Commission is right at the top of the chain of command--going down to these various companies, including the China Poly Group, and the 999 Enterprise Group, and so forth. I think the American people would be shocked to see the companies listed on this chart. This, I might add, is a very incomplete list, which is why I emphasize again the need for this amendment which would require a listing to be published of all PLA-owned enterprises that are buying and selling and doing business in the United States. It is well documented that the PLA violates international intellectual property rights by running factories which pirate videos, compact discs, and computer software that are products of the United States. This is the main reason the People's Republic of China failed to meet the standards of the 1995 memorandum of understanding with the United States on the protection of intellectual property rights. During my trip to China in January, I saw firsthand the evidence of the pirating of videos and CDs and the selling of those pirated products on the market, on the streets of Shanghai and Beijing. In violation of a February 1997 agreement with the United States, the People's Liberation Army continued to operate enterprises which engaged in the transshipment of textile products through third countries, thus thwarting tariffs and restrictions on illegally produced items from China. With all but five of China's long-range nuclear missiles pointed at the citizens of the United States, it is obvious that the increasingly aggressive People's Liberation Army views the United States as its most serious adversary. My colleagues have said they would like China as an ally. We would all like to have China as an ally. But let us not fool ourselves. When our Central Intelligence Agency tells us their missiles--13 of 18 of their long-range nuclear missiles--are pointed at the citizens of the United States, it is clear they view us as an adversary. It is a sad paradox that U.S. consumers, American consumers, purchasers of products in retail stores across this country, are the unwitting supporters of and funders of the military that has their hand on the nuclear button that threatens cities in the United States. Now, as we talk about the response of this amendment, of letting the American people know what companies are owned directly and indirectly by the military of the Chinese communist government, it seems to me to be a very basic freedom-of-information kind of issue, the right-to-know kind of issue. We talk about the response of the President, having the enhanced authority to deal with those PLA-owned companies that might be subsidizing the military buildup in China. It is important for us to remember the ongoing human rights violations that are occurring in China. Not only are they increasing their threat internationally, but within their own borders they continue to oppress their own people. This is not some human rights watchdog group that I am going to cite. It is our own State Department which each year issues a report from various countries around the world on human rights conditions. The latest State Department report on human rights in China shows that China is still one of the major offenders of internationally recognized human rights standards. This report notes that China is continuing to engage in ``torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, crackdowns on independent Catholic and Protestant bishops and believers, brutal oppression of ethnic minorities and religions in Tibet and Xinjiang, and absolute intolerance of free political speech or free press.'' To visit Shanghai, to visit Beijing, some of the largest cities in the world, the most populous cities in the world, and to realize there is not one free newspaper in those cities--in northwest Arkansas, in a two-county area, population of 200,000, we have half a dozen competing newspapers. These are free voices--free to criticize me, free to criticize this U.S. Senate, free to criticize our President--and in the largest cities in the world in China, not one voice of freedom, not one voice to reflect the values of democracy. So let us in this China debate, and as we look at amendments to the Department of Defense authorization bill, remember the ongoing human rights abuses that are taking place. Furthermore, that the current policy that we have pursued has so dismally failed. According to a recent report in the Washington Post entitled ``U.S.- China Talks Make Little Progress on Summit Agenda,'' the United States is getting very few concessions from China relating to the inspection of the technology we share with them, concessions on limiting proliferation of technology to third parties like Iran, or concessions on human rights conditions, particularly in Tibet. So our President is preparing to go to China next month, negotiations going on. We would hope they would be positive in light of our so- called policy of constructive engagement, yet we find our policy is one of give and give and give. We are not seeing corresponding concessions on the part of the Chinese Government. In fact, we are continuing to see these horrible human rights abuses taking place. We have provided key technology that puts our own country at risk. We have set up a hotline that reaches from the White House to China. We have begun assisting China on its efforts to gain membership in the World Trade Organization. We dropped, to the consternation of many Members of this body, we dropped our annual push for a resolution condemning China's human rights record at the United Nations, something this country has done year after year as part of our foreign policy. We dropped that resolution so as not to offend the Chinese Government. We continue to allow PLA-owned companies to operate unregulated in the United States, and we continue to provide China most-favored-nation status. In return, we have witnessed the release of four, in return for all of these concessions that we have granted, we have seen the Chinese Communist government release four prominent prisoners out of the thousands upon thousands of political and religious dissidents being held today in Chinese prisons. So I say to my colleagues, the American people have a right to know they are funding the People's Liberation Army. I believe the American consumers ought to know whether the products they are buying--including things like toys, sweaters and porcelain that they might purchase for the upcoming holidays--are supporting the People's Liberation Army and the kind of activities that I have identified today. The American people have a right to know. It may not be possible for American consumers to go into a Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target store and to identify all of the Chinese-produced products and to decide voluntarily they are not going to support that. But at least they ought to know which of those companies are controlled, directly or indirectly, by a military establishment in China that has targeted American cities with its missiles. This amendment will help to do just that. It is needed both to shed light on the PLA's activities in the United States and to ensure that the President has the latitude and has the authority he needs to take appropriate actions when the evidence of wrongdoing arises. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Again, this amendment merely requires the Secretary of Defense to document and list PLA-owned companies operating in the United States and provides the President with the power, authority, and discretion to take action against these companies, should circumstances so warrant. It does not require the President to do anything. I believe it is a commonsense amendment that, once again, passed by an overwhelming margin in the U.S. House of Representatives. I ask for my colleagues' support. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the chairman for his consideration, and I would not object to laying it aside so long as I will be assured there will be a rollcall vote if I so request it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to modify my amendment to accept the Harkin second degree.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I express my support for the friendly amendment and appreciate your support for the underlying amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. But because it was appropriations, it was only good for 1 year?

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an important piece of legislation which would restore fairness to small businesses and their employees in the nation's labor laws, and ensure freedom of choice in the marketplace. ``The Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998'' will achieve these goals, and improve fairness in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) process. Small businesses are facing a serious and devastating problem. They are the targets of unethical attempts to manipulate the law in order to injure or destroy the competition. We cannot allow any group with an ulterior and destructive motive to use coercive governmental power just to harass small businesses and their workers. Frivolus charges cost companies significant time, money, and resources to defend themselves against complaints that have no merit. Small businesses, in particular, need these resources to secure more work opportunities, invest in better equipment, and create more jobs. The bill I am introducing today consists of three separate small business bills, which I have previously introduced in the Senate: ``The Truth in Employment Act,'' ``The Fair Hearing Act,'' and ``The Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act (FAIR) Act.'' The first provision, ``The Truth in Employment Act,'' remedies the unscrupulous practice of ``salting'' by amending the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated to those of the employer. I would point out that the language in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA, including the right to organize. This provision would merely alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt the employer's workplace, or otherwise inflict economic harm designed to put the employer out of business. The second section, ``The Fair Hearing Act,'' would create a statutory right to a hearing for the employer when there is a dispute regarding the proper bargaining unit of a company with multiple locations. While the NLRB proposal has been ``tabled'' for now, there is still nothing in the law to assure fairness for employees. The last provision, ``The Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act (FAIR) Act,'' would amend the NLRA to provide that a small business or labor organization which prevails in an action against the NLRB will automatically be allowed to recoup the attorneys' fees and expenses it spends defending itself. Small employers often cannot afford the qualified legal representation necessary to defend themselves against NLRB charges. Mr. President, it is time to stop the devastating impact of unfair labor law enforcement on small businesses and their employees. Small businesses are truly the backbone of our nation's economy. We must curtail the anti-competitive attacks, and instead help these companies devote time, money, and resources toward productivity, growth, and providing new jobs. I would urge my fellow Senators to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and work to pass ``The Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998.'' The survival of America's small businesses demand that we act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an important piece of legislation which would restore fairness to small businesses and their employees in the nation's labor laws, and ensure freedom of choice in the marketplace. ``The Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998'' will achieve these goals, and improve fairness in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) process. Small businesses are facing a serious and devastating problem. They are the targets of unethical attempts to manipulate the law in order to injure or destroy the competition. We cannot allow any group with an ulterior and destructive motive to use coercive governmental power just to harass small businesses and their workers. Frivolus charges cost companies significant time, money, and resources to defend themselves against complaints that have no merit. Small businesses, in particular, need these resources to secure more work opportunities, invest in better equipment, and create more jobs. The bill I am introducing today consists of three separate small business bills, which I have previously introduced in the Senate: ``The Truth in Employment Act,'' ``The Fair Hearing Act,'' and ``The Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act (FAIR) Act.'' The first provision, ``The Truth in Employment Act,'' remedies the unscrupulous practice of ``salting'' by amending the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to make clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated to those of the employer. I would point out that the language in no way infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees under the NLRA, including the right to organize. This provision would merely alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to hire individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt the employer's workplace, or otherwise inflict economic harm designed to put the employer out of business. The second section, ``The Fair Hearing Act,'' would create a statutory right to a hearing for the employer when there is a dispute regarding the proper bargaining unit of a company with multiple locations. While the NLRB proposal has been ``tabled'' for now, there is still nothing in the law to assure fairness for employees. The last provision, ``The Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act (FAIR) Act,'' would amend the NLRA to provide that a small business or labor organization which prevails in an action against the NLRB will automatically be allowed to recoup the attorneys' fees and expenses it spends defending itself. Small employers often cannot afford the qualified legal representation necessary to defend themselves against NLRB charges. Mr. President, it is time to stop the devastating impact of unfair labor law enforcement on small businesses and their employees. Small businesses are truly the backbone of our nation's economy. We must curtail the anti-competitive attacks, and instead help these companies devote time, money, and resources toward productivity, growth, and providing new jobs. I would urge my fellow Senators to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and work to pass ``The Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act of 1998.'' The survival of America's small businesses demand that we act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Once again, this is a good amendment. It was broadly supported in the House on a bipartisan basis. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, amendment No. 2388 is the second amendment. Has the amendment been modified by the Harkin amendment?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I, as the sponsor of the amendment, accept the second-degree amendment by Senator Thomas, ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays, and urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.