Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the chairman, may I clarify my previous response that in fact it would not come from the Department of Defense, not come from the defense budget, but authorizes $2 million from the Department of Treasury. So it would not in any way intrude upon that which your committee has sought to ensure adequate defenses for the country.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank my colleague for that clarification.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Two million dollars.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am glad to.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I simply say that the national security of the United States--part of that is ensuring that the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese Government not receive resources and revenues through products produced by slave labor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the chairman, I would presume that the $2 million--this is an amendment to the Department of Defense bill, so I would assume the $2 million would come out of the defense bill. And $2 million, I might add--if I might inquire of the chairman, the total budget, the total amount authorized in the defense bill, is how much?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and, again, it was noncontroversial when it was voted on in the House of Representatives. In fact, the language in this amendment passed the House with almost unanimous support. Having served in the House 4 years, I know this happens rarely. It was a 419-to-2 vote. So, it had overwhelming bipartisan support. This amendment will simply do two things: First, it will express the sense of the Congress that the President should replace any memorandums of understanding on prison labor that lack effective monitoring procedures like the one negotiated with the People's Republic of China and replace the agreement with a stricter monitoring system. Second, the bill authorizes $2 million in additional funds for the U.S. Customs Service to monitor the importation of slave-labor-produced goods. As everyone in this body knows, the importation of goods made by convicts has been banned for more than a half a century. This law underscores Americans' firm conviction that such products produced by coerced and forced labor should not be sold in this country. I believe Americans are repulsed by the very thought of benefiting from cheap prices on products produced by the sweat and blood of foreign prisoners. Despite this ban, products made in Communist China's vast archipelago of slave labor camps, known as the laogai, continue to flow into this country unabated. This system of laogai, a word meaning reform through labor, was designed for the dual purposes of political control and forced economic development. Interestingly, this system is modeled on Stalin's Soviet Gulag, which we all remember was exposed most graphically by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. This system of forced labor, slave labor, has been an integral part of Chinese totalitarianism since the inception of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Harry Wu, a survivor of the laogai, and a friend of mine, has estimated that some 50 million Chinese men and women have passed through these camps, of whom 15 million have perished. Today, anywhere from 6 to 8 million people are captive in the 1,100 camps of laogai, held and forced to work under grossly inhumane conditions. According to official statistics, the laogai operate 140 export enterprises selling products to over 70 nations abroad, including the United States. These enterprises are responsible for producing key commodities, including uranium, graphite, rubber, cotton, asbestos, and one-third of Chinese tea is produced in these slave labor camps, as well as a huge array of consumer goods, including toys, artificial flowers and, ironically, Christmas lights and rosaries. When I went to China in January, I asked to visit a laogai prison. In fact, I asked every day. I asked repeatedly, and repeatedly, but my requests to visit a laogai prison were denied. Fortunately, one of my colleagues in the House on an earlier trip, Representative Frank Wolf, was able to visit Beijing Prison No. 1. This is the exterior of that prison camp that Congressman Wolf visited, a prison camp that includes a slave labor industry. This second photo shows us the picture of the Beijing hosiery factory. This is located inside of that prison camp. The third photo actually shows the assembly line where these products are made. In this prison, Mr. Wolf found slave laborers producing socks on this assembly line. I have some of the very socks produced on that assembly line which Mr. Wolf brought back. You can see the socks. This particular pair was determined to be for export. This is not just a matter of laogai slave labor prisons, which would be horrific enough, that would be bad enough, but these particular products were made for export to other countries. When I was in China, I saw many things. One thing I did not see was any golf courses, but the logo on these socks is a person swinging a golf club, obviously not intended for sale within China but for sale on the foreign market. Although the United States entered into binding agreements with China in 1992 and 1994 to bar trade in prison labor products and to allow inspection of its forced-labor camps, the Chinese Government has frustrated their implementation, both by using dual names to disguise camp products and by denying access to those slave labor camps. In 1996, the Chinese Government granted access to just one prison labor camp. Out of the whole laogai system, access in 1996 was granted to only one that had been requested by the U.S. Customs Service. Mr. President, the following two charts show examples of laogai prison camps that have never been inspected, though the request has been made to visit. These photos were taken, obviously, outside the camp. This is laogai slave labor camp No. 5 and Zhejiang laogai slave labor camp. Both of these labor camps--we have a second picture as well--show individuals going into the camp. These pictures were obtained by the Laogai Research Foundation. Mr. President, the two most recent State Department human rights reports on China state that ``Repeated delays in arranging prison labor site visits called into question the government's intention regarding the implementation of the two agreements.'' So we have two agreements with China which were to provide for inspections of these camps in which these kinds of products are made to compete with American workers. According to our State Department, we have found, instead of cooperation, obstructionism and delays in arranging for visits to those labor camps. Obviously, I think this indicates that the Chinese Government is not intent on cooperating with us on trying to ensure that the products produced are not being sold domestically or to the foreign market and that humane conditions prevail in these camps. The U.S. Customs Service has already banned 27 different products of laogai camps. Unfortunately, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on May 22, 1997, the Customs Commissioner George Weise noted that the Customs Service is too weak and understaffed to monitor China's slave labor enterprises. Specifically, he said: We simply do not have the tools within our present arsenal at Customs to gain the timely and in depth verification that we need. I want to say I do not know whether he is accurate in that contention or not. I would not presume to say whether or not the Customs Service actually has the resources to do the job or not. But I want them to have no excuse; I do not want them to be able to come to the House or to the Senate, to our committees, our oversight committees, and say, we simply cannot do the job that we are mandated to do in ensuring that these products are not being sold in the United States of America that are being produced in these slave labor camps. These expansive forced-labor camps operate at very low costs even in relation to China's lower wage scale, thus providing them a competitive advantage over other firms and giving them sizable profit margins that help to fund the Chinese Government. The laogai are in a win-win situation. It is a win-win for China. They help maintain their political control and indoctrination of the citizenry, and they funnel money into their treasury through these slave labor enterprises. American businesses that use wage-earning employees are being placed at a competitive disadvantaged by less scrupulous competitors who use this illegal source of artificially cheap labor. These socks are the kind of thing they are producing. And they are producing them with slave labor, prisoners who are being paid little, if anything. And those laborers are competing with American workers, placing our workers at an incredible disadvantage. As more businesses rely on Chinese slave labor and slave-labor-produced goods, U.S. employment in these industries fall. Thus, despite the productivity advantage of U.S. labor--and I do not believe there is a better worker in the world; I do not believe there are harder workers in the world than the American worker--but in spite of that high productivity, how can we ask them to compete? And, in fact, they cannot compete against low- or no-cost employment in the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, I doubt American consumers would knowingly fund a Stalinist system of forced labor and repression. That is why they support laws banning this practice and expect the U.S. Government to do everything possible to ensure that such products are not sold in the United States. Yet because of the lax enforcement and the open Chinese disregard for United States law, Americans are being duped into buying products made by slave laborers. I think that is unfortunate. I think they are doing so unwittingly. But I think we have to do a better job to ensure, in monitoring those products that are coming into this country, that they are not made in inhumane, slave labor conditions that exist in hundreds of prisons in China today. That is why this is a modest--what I would call a baby step, this is a minimalist approach. This is the least we can do, to simply give $2 million to the Customs Service and say we have to have better monitoring of these products. We have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to stop slave labor and to end the flow of slave-labor-produced goods in this country which will stop the flow of profits or at least slow the flow of profits into the PRC. I think it is a rational first step, a small step but a rational step. I urge my fellow Senators to join 419 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by passing this amendment to increase the Customs Service enforcement funding and to reach agreements that give the Customs Service the powers they need to end this bloody trail. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add my good friend and colleague, Senator Abraham of Michigan, as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2388 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so that I can offer a second amendment.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have not talked to Senator D'Amato about the bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. They have not indicated to me their intent to hold hearings or move on this bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. This particular bill was referred to Banking.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think there were 10 bills that passed out of the House regarding China policy as a block, separate bills, but that was last November. Two of those have passed, in various forms, in the Senate. Six of those bills were referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. The other two--the two I am now offering--one was referred to Banking and the other to Finance. I have had ongoing discussions with Senator Helms of the Foreign Relations Committee. It is my understanding that they will address these bills this coming week. Therefore, I defer taking any action upon those because of the committee's anticipation of looking at these next week. The ones in Banking and Finance I thought were important to move ahead on. This was the most appropriate vehicle before us. I am not aware that there were any plans for hearings. Since so much time had elapsed since they were referred to the Senate, it would seem to be the appropriate time to move them.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, today, as you may be aware, is Asthma Awareness Day. I rise to discuss the issue of CFC-propelled asthma inhalers. CFC-propelled inhalers are a necessary tool for proper management of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Over 30 million Americans depend on these inhalers in order to function normally in their daily lives. In many cases, they are literally the difference between life and death. I recently joined my colleague, Senator DeWine, in introducing S. 2026, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act. This bill is a revised version of legislation that I introduced last year in response to the Food and Drug Administration's announcement of its plans to issue a rule that will phase out the production of CFC-propelled inhalers. The FDA's announcement to phase-out metered-dose inhalers was prompted by the Montreal Protocol agreement to eliminate ozone depleting chemicals, including CFCs. In the U.S., the manufacture of CFCs was discontinued in January of 1996. CFCs may still be used, however, as long as their use qualifies as an ``essential use.'' Currently, inhalers are considered as ``essential use'' and are exempt from the CFC ban. As the United States contemplates total elimination of CFCs and removal of the essential use designation for inhalers, we face several issues. First of all, how fast should we phase out CFC inhalers and will patients' health be jeopardized? It is my understanding that the amount of CFCs released by metered-dose inhalers accounts for less than 1.5 percent of the total amount emitted into the atmosphere. Is the environmental benefit of phasing out inhalers without taking into account the full needs of patients worth placing lives in danger? As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, I support the goal of ridding our environment of ozone depleting chemicals. However, from a patient perspective, any transition to CFC-free alternatives that does not take into account the needs of all patients will do more harm than good. Under the FDA's initial proposal, a whole class of inhalers could be removed from the market if only three alternatives exist. The method by which the FDA has grouped inhaler medications into classes assumes that they are medically and therapeutically equivalent. I suggest to my colleagues this is FALSE. Inhalers vary in terms of formulation, dosage strength, delivery of medication, and their effectiveness for patients. Patients frequently test several inhalers under physician supervision before they find the inhaler that works best for them. To deny patients their inhaler without a suitable range of alternatives could potentially put their lives at risk. Another concern that cannot be overlooked is how the removal of existing products and their generic counterparts will influence the marketplace. A decrease in competition has obvious consequences in terms of cost and the availability of drugs on the shelf. Finally, the FDA should take into account other countries' strategies for phasing out CFCs in inhalers in order to ensure that the U.S. takes the best and most responsible approach. I know that Canada, for example, has rejected the class approach taken by the FDA and proposed a policy that will require a proper range of alternatives to exist for each medication type. It also provides for a transition period so patients can ease off of their current medication and make sure that there is a new product that accommodates their needs. The Asthma Inhaler Protection Act addresses all of these issues by including three requirements. First, before any further rulemaking, the FDA must conduct assessments and report to Congress on the health and environmental risks associated with its initial proposal. It must also consider whether any measures adopted by the meeting of the Montreal Protocol this November will facilitate the United States' transition away from CFC inhalers. Second, the FDA is required to develop criteria by which ``essential use'' allowances for CFC-propelled inhalers will be removed. These criteria shall require that a range of alternatives are available for each medication type, and that they are comparable in terms of dosage strength, delivery systems and safety and efficacy. Furthermore, the alternatives must be available in sufficient numbers to meet consumer demand. Finally, the Asthma Inhaler Protection Act includes steps to ensure that manufacturers will begin to transition away from inhalers that employ CFCs. Under the bill, no new applications for products containing CFCs will be considered by the FDA after 1998 unless they represent a significant advance in technology. Any new approvals, however, will be subject to the same criteria as I described earlier. Madam President, the transition to non-CFC propelled inhalers in the United States must be well-planned and take into account both patient and environmental concerns. It is clear that the FDA needs to rethink its approach. We knew this last year after the FDA published its proposal and was flooded by more than 10,000 comments from concerned patients, providers, state medical boards, and advocacy groups. These concerns were again raised last month during a Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing which Chairman Jeffords held at my request. The Asthma Inhaler Protection Act will ensure that the FDA balances patients needs with environmental concerns, and above all, does not jeopardize the lives of millions of Americans who depend on CFC metered-dose inhalers. It is simply a matter of ensuring that the 30 million Americans currently dependent upon these inhalers--and all of us have seen them; these little canisters that asthmatics carry with them every day everywhere they go--we simply must ensure that as the FDA moves forward that they will do so in a way that ensures that patients all across this country are not allowed to go without medical care that they so desperately need; and that the policy of the FDA will be such that these patients will know that they are not going to have less choice than they have now; that the particular peculiar medical needs that asthmatics and others of respiratory diseases have will be met; that they will be assured that the needs that they have can be addressed; and, that the FDA will take those concerns into account as they move forward. I believe the FDA will be responsive. This legislation, though, is there, and I am looking forward to working with Senator DeWine, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Congressman Mark Foley on the House side to ensure that as the FDA moves forward with its rulemaking that it will do so in a way that is going to ensure that 30 million Americans are cared for and are not left in the lurch worried that their very lives might be in danger. I hope all of us on this day, the first Asthma Awareness Day, will do our part to educate the American people about the serious health impact, particularly upon our children, that asthma is having, and the dramatic increase that we have seen in asthma in this country, and that the FDA in their, I think, well-motivated goal of removing these chemicals from our environment will do so in a way that the health and safety of the American people is protected. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, the headlines in last week's newspapers ought to bring pause to this body and to all of us as Americans. The Washington Times, on Friday, had the headline ``China Targets Nukes at U.S.'' The inside part of that article, on a graphic, it says ``China's Long-Range Missiles,'' quoting a CIA report last May that ``13 of China's 18 CSS-4 missiles are now targeted at cities in the United States of America.'' This report was followed by a report in the Washington Times today, headlined ``U.S. Firms Make China More Dangerous: Technology Aid Helps Missiles Reach America.'' I will say that again. ``Technology Aid Helps Missiles Reach America.'' This was also reported in the New York Times, another major newspaper in the United States. These stories are based on a new CIA report released last week that noted that 13 of China's 18 long-range strategic missiles have single nuclear warheads aimed at U.S. cities. These missiles, with a range of over 8,000 miles, prove convincingly that China views the United States as its most serious adversary. This is further proof, I believe, that the current administration's policy of so-called constructive engagement has failed, and failed terribly, as China continues to go this route, as China continues to take provocative actions and actions that seriously endanger the security of the United States. It is important to note that these missiles are in addition to China's 25 CSS-3 missiles, with ranges of more than 3,400 miles, and 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 even the intelligence, and certainly they lacked the technology necessary to manufacture boosters that could reliably strike at such long distances. In fact, it is reported that in a launch test of the boosters, their technology failed to launch the boosters three out of five times. That is a 60-percent failure rate. Likewise, they were years from developing the space technology necessary to launch multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, otherwise known as MIRVs, multiple warhead missiles. Now they are only years away, if not months, from having such technology. Some time ago, I participated in a firing-line debate on the campus of the University of Mississippi. During that debate, when the issue of national security was raised, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reassured the audience of thousands, and the nationwide television audience of millions, that we need not be concerned about China's capability to launch missiles that might place American cities at risk. He said, in fact, it would be a couple of decades before China was anywhere near having the technology that could place the United States and American citizens at risk. Well, now we find that because of our own aid, and because of our own technology transfers to China, already we are seeing these missiles targeting American cities, and that this advanced technology is very much now at their disposal. How did China get this technology? Two U.S. companies--the Loral Space and Communications Company and the Hughes Electronic Company--are under investigation by the State Department following a classified Pentagon report that concluded that the two companies illegally gave China space expertise during cooperation on a Chinese commercial satellite launch. This report concluded that ``the United States national security has been harmed.'' Here are the details: In 1996, during the course of an investigation of a Chinese rocket carrying a $200 million Loral satellite, scientists allegedly shared with their Chinese counterparts a report explaining the cause of the accident, which turned out to be an electrical flaw in the flight control system. This system is similar to those used on ICBM launch-guidance systems. In February, with the investigation of this incident underway, President Clinton permitted Loral to launch another satellite on a Chinese rocket and to provide the Chinese with the same expertise that is at issue in the criminal case, officials have said. A senior official said the administration recognized the sensitivity of the decision but approved the launch because the investigation had reached no conclusions, and Loral had properly handled accident launches. The administration, he said, still could take administrative action against the companies if they were found to have violated export laws in their earlier dealings with the Chinese. Another company--Motorola--is also involved in upgrading China's missile system. The chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Technology received word from an unnamed official from Motorola that they, too, have been involved in upgrading China's missile capability. Interestingly, this executive claims the work is being done under a waiver--a waiver granted from the Clinton administration--thus, circumventing all of the bans and restrictions on such technology transfers. This technology was supposed to be controlled, restricted. Madam President, trade in missile and space technology to China was supposed to be severely restricted under the sanctions related to the crackdown of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Unfortunately, this administration has implemented a give-give strategy of appeasement, which has weakened or eliminated most of these restrictions. Politics must not supersede national security concerns. Why did this administration make such an incredible and risky decision? Loral has numerous business deals with China. Loral has close ties to the White House. Its chairman and chief executive officer, Bernard Schwartz, was the largest individual contributor to the Democratic National Committee last year. Motorola's involvement and ties with this administration are just now being investigated. This raises serious questions and puts a dark cloud over these dealings, particularly in light of the CIA report indicating China is now targeting American cities. In addition to legally getting this technology through these waivers from the current administration, China has twice violated its agreement to follow the principles of the missile technology and control regime. Yet, under this administration's policy of appeasement, the administration is asking China to sign on to the missile technology regime. This is like stacking new promises on top of broken promises and then calling it progress. It is important to note that China's inclusion in the missile regime would allow even greater technology transfers to be made, thus, putting more Americans at even greater risk. Madam President, most importantly, China continues to repress and oppress its own people, in violation of international law. The latest State Department Report on Human Rights in China shows that China is still a major, if not the major, offender of internationally recognized human rights in the world today. This report from our own State Department notes that China continues 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, of course, absolute intolerance of free political speech or free press''--from our State Department report. These are not new charges. The tragedy is not that we are hearing these charges repeated; the tragedy is that we continue the same policy that has allowed these kinds of repression and repressive practices to exist. We continue along the same line as if everything is fine. Human rights abuses, religious persecution, forced abortion, and slavery are all raised at the staff level, with only token concern expressed by senior officials in this administration. In addition to this report from the State Department, there are well documented abuses. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has indicted two Chinese immigrants for the sale and marketing of human body parts. I raised this allegation at a speech that I gave at the Fulbright Institute on the campus of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, with many visitors there from outside the State of Arkansas, and their disbelief and skepticism was expressed to me that this in fact was factual. Well, it is factual. It is beyond dispute that two indictments have been brought down regarding the sale of human body parts and harvesting of these body parts from Chinese prisoners with the full cooperation of the Chinese Government, and in some instances U.S. businesses. In this case, U.S. industry is alleged to have provided the Chinese Government with a dialysis machine to assist the harvesting of organs in their prison hospitals. On the policy of appeasement--the administration calls it ``constructive engagement''--I think indisputably today a policy of appeasement to the Chinese Government is obviously failing. According to a report in the Washington Post on Friday titled ``U.S.-China Talks Make Little Progress on Summit Agenda,'' the United States, we find, is getting few concessions from China relating to the inspection of technology that we share with them; we are getting few concessions on limiting proliferation of technology to third-party states like Iran; and we are getting few concessions on the most important issue of all-- that of human rights conditions, particularly in Tibet. As the President prepares to travel to China, as he prepares to continue this policy of so-called ``constructive engagement,'' we find that even as we seek concessions in line with international norms, that we meet a stone wall. Our only token concessions are the release of high-profile prisoners. Despite this very obvious failure, we continue to give, and give under the guise of ``constructive engagement.'' We have provided key technology that puts our own country at risk. We have set up a hot line that reaches from the White House to China. We have begun assisting China in its efforts to gain membership into the World Trade Organization, even as our balance of trade with China reaches new levels, new highs. Yet we try to orchestrate their efforts to get into the WTO. We dropped our annual push for a resolution condemning China's human rights record at the United Nations. This is something we have done year in and year out. We called upon the United Nations to condemn the abuses that are ongoing in China. This administration has dropped even that kind of symbolic gesture that has been a part of our foreign policy. We failed to do that in spite of the adoption of the sense-of-the- Senate resolution asking this administration to do that. And we continue to provide China most-favored-nation status. In return for this, we have witnessed the release of three--we have witnessed the release of three--high-profile prisoners of conscience from China's prisons, three out of the thousands upon thousands of political and religious dissidents currently held in Chinese prisons. I would suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that we need to immediately respond in two ways. First of all, the Senate should immediately pass the 8 House-passed bills on China, bills that the House of Representatives adopted on huge bipartisan margins, by huge margins last year, usually from 350 votes to 400-plus votes on these various bills, short of denying most-favored-nation status but at least taking targeted measures to tell this repressive government in Beijing that the United States is serious when it announces its concerns about the abuses that are ongoing in China. Eight bills--ten bills passed the House. Two of them we have adopted in the Senate, but eight continue to languish without action. I asked our majority leader. I talked with him. He has given positive indications that we will bring these eight House bills to the floor for a vote in the U.S. Senate prior to the President's trip to Beijing in June. These bills include H.R. 2195 regarding slave labor, which passed the House by a vote of 419 to 2. H.R. 2195 was designed to keep slave-labor products out of the United States, authorizing needed funding for genuine enforcement of the ban on slave-labor products, calling upon the President to strengthen international agreements to improve monitoring of slave-labor imports. If it passed by this overwhelming margin in the House, I suspect if we had an opportunity to vote on that in the Senate, it would pass by an equally large margin. It is something we need to do before the President travels to China. H.R. 967, the ``Free the Clergy'' bill, which passed the House on November 6 of last year by a 366 to 54 margin: H.R. 967 targets those Communist officials who engage in religious persecution, banning their travel to the United States by prohibiting the expenditure of any U.S. taxpayer dollars in support of their travel and subjecting it to a Presidential waiver allowing them to be denied their visas. I think that is a simple step, a very modest step, that we should, that we must, do to ensure that United States statements of concern about religious persecution in China have some validity--even the denial of visas, travel opportunities, for those officials in China who continue to practice and implement the policy of religious persecution. H.R. 2570 regarding forced abortions passed the House on November 6, 1997, with a 415-to-1 margin, yet the Senate these many months later has not yet had an opportunity to vote on this bill. This bill, H.R. 2570, targets those Communist officials involved in forced abortion sterilization, banning once again their travel to the United States. I think that, once again, is a very modest move. It is about the most modest move that we could possibly take regarding Communist government officials who are implementing a policy of forced abortion and sterilizations in China today and prohibiting them from traveling to the United States. H.R. 2358 on human rights monitors passed the House by a 416-to-5 vote. It would increase six-fold the number of U.S. diplomats at the Beijing Embassy assigned to monitor human rights. I visited China in January. I know firsthand how short-handed our State Department officials and diplomatic officials are and how limited they are in their ability to monitor the ongoing human rights abuses in China. If we are to have the knowledge, if we as a body are to have the information that we so desperately need, these human rights monitors are needed. In addition, the new law will add at least one human rights monitor to each U.S. consulate in Communist China. H.R. 2232 on Radio Free Asia passed the House by a 401-to-21 margin and would fund a 24-hour-a-day broadcast throughout Communist China in each of the major dialects spoken in China. This Radio Free Asia bill will allow the truth of freedom to penetrate Communist China. And, in fact, the truth will set them free. And, as we are allowed to give the story of freedom and the story of democracy, the democracy movement, which was so alive almost 9 years ago on Tiananmen Square, will be alive and evident again in China. It passed by an overwhelming margin. H.R. 2605 on World Bank loans passed the House by a 354-to-59 margin. This bill would direct U.S. representatives at the World Bank to vote against below-market subsidies for Communist China. This is far short of denying MFN. I have heard all of the arguments against denying MFN in China. Indeed, this is not a blunt instrument. This is a very sharp scalpel, a very small instrument that can be used, simply denying subsidized loans by the American taxpayer to the Government of Communist China, which continues to practice these horrendous abuses against their own people. H.R. 2647, the People's Liberation Army companies, corporations-- companies and businesses and enterprises owned and operated by the People's Liberation Army, which passed the House by a vote of 405 to 10, would require the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA to compile a list of known PLA commercial fronts operating in the United States and would authorize the President to monitor, to restrict, and to seize the assets of and ban such PLA companies within the United States. For my colleagues, I would say these are companies predominantly owned and operated by the military of Communist China. These companies should not be free to operate and to trade freely in the United States. So this would authorize our various agencies--the Defense Department, Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and so forth--to monitor, to provide a list and authorize the President to restrict and seize the assets of such companies. H.R. 2386, this legislation, passing by a vote of 301 to 116, provides that the United States shall help Taiwan to develop and deploy an effective theater missile defense system. It has been obvious by some of the actions and some of the statements of the Beijing regime that they had designs on free Taiwan. This would simply be a step in ensuring that Taiwan would be able to defend themselves against any overt military action by the mainland Chinese Communist government. The second step I believe that we should take as a body, the Senate should support the resolution that I introduced on releasing the remaining dissidents in China. Senate Resolution 212, which I introduced on April 22, last month, with six cosponsors, has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and expresses the sense of the Senate that at the upcoming United States-China summit the President should demand the release of all persons remaining imprisoned in China and Tibet for political or religious reasons. I hope that as our President journeys to China these most important issues--human rights, religious persecution, weapons proliferation-- would not be relegated to staff level discussions but, in fact, the President himself would elevate them and would ensure that these issues become the primary focus of our relationship with China and that progress on these fronts is directly linked to the trade opportunities that China seeks. This resolution states that in the upcoming proposed summit between President Clinton and President Jiang of China, President Clinton should demand the immediate and unconditional release, consistent with established principles of human rights, of all persons remaining in China and Tibet for political or religious reasons. It says, secondly, the President should submit a report to Congress as soon as possible after the proposed summit in China concerning his progress in securing the release of persons imprisoned in China and Tibet. Third, it says one prisoner released into exile does not change the fundamental flaws within the Chinese judicial and penal system. Fourth, it states that the U.S. policy of granting concessions to the Chinese Government in exchange for the release of high-profile prisoners is an offense to the thousands of dissidents remaining in prison. I, as all Americans, rejoice and am thrilled at the release of any prisoner of conscience in China. Wang Dan's release, I am glad for that. Wei's release, I am glad for that. But I also know that the release of a handful of well-known dissidents is no substitute for change in the fundamental policy of the Chinaese Government, which continues to be one of repression and persecution of those who would raise their voice for freedom or raise their voice for their own conscience. And then the resolution states that the President should not offer to lift the sanctions imposed on China after the 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square, and those measures should not be reversed until we see substantive and real changes in the policies of the Chinese Government. I am not anti-Chinese. I was thrilled while I was in China to meet scores of individuals in China who are going about their daily lives making a living. I was glad to see the progress in moving toward a market system. I was glad to see the churches that are, though regulated stringently by the government, filled to the brim every Sunday. I was glad to see the Buddhist temples, though, once again, strictly regulated by the government, seeking to operate and continuing to operate. But I was chagrined to see that the government's fundamental policy towards its own people has not changed, that their concept of freedom is not that which is embedded in the founding documents envisioned by our Founding Fathers and appreciated and admired and accepted by the international community all over this world. This is not a case of the United States seeking to impose its ideas of democracy upon another culture. It, rather, is seeking to have our country, as it always has, reflect in our foreign policy the underlying values of freedom that are not American but are human, that transcend every national boundary, that transcend every culture and society and are fundamental for basic respect of human dignity and human rights. It is that, I think, President Reagan had in mind when he spoke of this country as a shining city on a hill, a nation that could be admired and respected the world over because of a foreign policy, reflected in its attitude and in its policies toward our neighbors around the world, of fundamental respect for human rights. It was almost 9 years ago when the massacre at Tiananmen occurred--June 8 and June 9, almost 9 years ago. Those students, hundreds of them that were massacred, looked to the United States as its emblem, as its symbol of freedom in the world. It was Lady Liberty that they erected that stood there in Tiananmen Square day after day, week after week, testimony to the desire of Chinese people for greater freedom. Now it is our time to stand with them. It is time for our President as he journeys to China to take this stand forcefully and to elevate this as the primary reason, the primary purpose in his journey to that important nation in the world. And as he is willing to do that, this body will stand with him. I hope, once again, that the Senate will adopt the House-passed bills, that we will adopt the sense of the Senate, and in so doing we will arm the President with the forceful opinion of the American people that fundamental change needs to take place in the Chinese Communist government in its attitudes and its policies toward its own people. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, this is an old formula to identify a problem and then you create a new Federal program that might solve it. There is a problem. There is a problem with after-school care. The solution is not to create yet another Federal program. We already have four existing programs that allow for after-school care. One of the problems with this amendment, or this program, would be that it would be school-based, school-run, and, therefore, prohibit scores of organizations like the YMCA that are currently providing for after- school care. They would be excluded entirely. There are 19 existing Federal programs that provide tutoring and mentoring for students on a one-on-one basis. So it is simply unnecessary to start a new Federal program at a price tag of $250 million. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. With another new program, there is another layer of bureaucracy, another level of bureaucracy created. It really dilutes the resources we have actually getting to those kids who are in need of after-school caring and one-on-one tutoring.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is my understanding as well, which is another step I believe in federalizing our local schools and removing the control ultimately from the local schools.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. There are 19 existing programs for mentoring and tutoring on the books as well as a whole host of programs dealing with after-school care.