Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until the hour of 2 p.m. today, with Senators limited to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Graham, 30 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes; Senator Lott or designee, 45 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the submission of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'') Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, of the 82 American airmen, there are three from my home State of Arkansas: Mr. William Powell of Bella Vista, Mr. Frank Cowan of Harrison, and Mr. Robert Ward of Springdale. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to share the response of two of those Arkansans when they learned that this resolution was being introduced today. Mr. William Powell said: The recognition is long overdue. For decades, the Department of Defense and the International Red Cross have stated that there were no military personnel in Buchenwald. Yet as someone who was imprisoned there for 4 months I know of at least 55 other American soldiers who endured the hardships of this camp. Two men even lost lives there. And nearly all suffered diseases later in life because of the treatment they received while held in Buchenwald. In the late 70s, early 80s, I joined with the other survivors of Buchenwald to push this government to recognize our service. We never wanted any money, we just wanted the United States Government to say, Yes, you were there, and we appreciate what you went through for our country. I will quote from Mr. Frank Cowan: It has been a long time coming, but finally our sacrifice will be acknowledged. Unfortunately, many of those who were at Buchenwald have passed on, nevertheless, there are many of us still alive to enjoy this. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues today to join us in support of this important measure so those veterans still living, and the families and friends of those who have passed on, can fully realize the public recognition these brave men so surely deserve.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today, to join with my friend and colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman, in submitting a bill that will give appropriate and well-deserved recognition to a group of World War II veterans who were held as German political prisoners at the Nazi concentration camp, Buchenwald. Fittingly, today is Shavout in the Jewish religion. This holiday commemorates the Jews receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai and celebrates their fleeing from Egypt. First and foremost, I want to thank the original cosponsors of this bill: Senators Helms, Faircloth, Torri- celli, Reid of Nevada, Smith of New Hampshire, Santorum, Hagel, Craig, Mack, Kohl, Murkowski, and Ashcroft. Mr. President, Congressmen Dave Weldon and Peter Deutsch will be introducing similar legislation later today in the House of Representatives. These brave airmen were different from other Allied prisoners, because they were held at Buchenwald, a Nazi concentration camp--and therefore not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. The Nazi concentration camps will forever occupy an ignominious place in our human history, and we have long recognized the bravery and daring of many prisoners who fought their Nazi oppressors and struggled to win political and religious freedom. Tragically, Mr. President, the United States has never formally recognized the service, sacrifice, and bravery of these American airmen while they were held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp. Our bill, which has been endorsed by the American Ex-Prisoners of War and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, would recognize these 82 American airmen and ask that the President issue a proclamation commending their service. Mr. President, I do have a list of the names and whereabouts of these 82 American airmen and I ask unanimous consent that it appear in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 2:30 p.m. today the Senate begin debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1469, the supplemental appropriations bill, and there be 2 hours for debate, to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member or their designees, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, no further debate be in order, or motions to recommit, and the vote on adoption of the conference report occur at 5:05 p.m. this evening.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am also asked to report to the Presiding Officer that all Members should be on notice that a vote will occur at 5:05 p.m. this evening on adoption of the supplemental appropriations conference report. I yield the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the administration's proposal to renew most-favored- nation status for China, and I rise as an original cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 31, the resolution of disapproval of MFN. First and foremost, I want to recognize my good friend and colleague from North Carolina, Senator Jesse Helms. Over the years, Senator Helms has dedicated himself to making this body and the American people aware of China's human rights record of abuse. I sincerely thank the Senator and his staff for their leadership on this very important issue. Mr. President, yesterday, June 4, 1997, was the eighth anniversary of the violence in Tiananmen Square. It has now been 8 years since the suppression of prodemocracy protests in China; 8 years since the killing of hundreds of unarmed civilians by the army in Beijing. In 1989, we all watched with amazement as these courageous Chinese students marched in Tiananmen Square. Today, they are all gone. During their struggle, they defied the tanks, they looked to the United States for inspiration, they quoted our Declaration of Independence and, through it all, Mr. President, United States policymakers have responded that economic engagement would stop China's abuses of human rights. As far as I can tell, it is, in fact, profit projections that are primarily driving our foreign policy. How can the United States consider renewing MFN for China when the Chinese authorities still have taken no steps to publicly investigate the circumstances of the killings and bring to justice those found responsible for human rights violations? Instead, the families of victims and people attempting to gather information about those killed are themselves subjected to harassment and intimidation in a continuing attempt by authorities to conceal the facts of what occurred 8 years ago. The Chinese Government defines the 1989 protest as a ``counterrevolutionary riot.'' I believe this definition has been used since 1989 to justify the imprisonment of many people who are the victims of human rights violations. Thousands of political prisoners-- thousands--arrested during the crackdown, including prisoners of conscience, are believed to be imprisoned today. How can this Congress accept the administration's proposal to renew MFN for China? How can we stand here in good faith and look the other way? By turning a blind eye to this oppression in the interest of trade opportunities, I believe the United States is sending a clear and unmistakable message. It is the wrong message. The message to the Government of China is one of commendation rather than one of condemnation. It has been almost 3 years since the United States formally delinked American trade with China for its human rights performance of abuse. So I say to my colleagues, much has changed in China in the last 3 years, but the changes that have occurred in China have not been changes for the better. We now see a human rights situation in China that is worse by every measure--persecution of Christians, forced abortions, sterilizations of the mentally handicapped, kangaroo courts for Democratic dissenters, incarceration of political dissidents, and, Mr. President, the near extinction of the expression of any opinion contrary to that of the Communist regime. I am deeply concerned with the mounting campaign of religious persecutions waged by the rulers of China. Regarding China's deprivation of fundamental human rights and religious aspirations, continuing MFN to China is effectively equivalent to a policy of appeasement. The Roman Catholic Church has been made, for all practical purposes, illegal in China. Priests, bishops, and people of faith have been imprisoned and harassed. For example, Zheng Yunsu, the leader of a Jesus family, a Protestant community in Shadong Province, is one of many people who are behind bars simply for practicing their faith. He was arrested during a police raid on the community in 1992. He was later sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for disrupting public order and ``swindling.'' His four sons and other members of the group were also imprisoned. I believe that they are all prisoners of conscience. Mr. President, such persecutions of religious groups has followed a substantial religious revival in China over the past 15 years. In the Christian community, much of the expansion has been in religious groups that conduct their activities outside the Protestant and Catholic churches still recognized by the government, though they are greatly restricted. Many peaceful but unregistered religious gatherings have been raided by police, and those attending those services have been beaten, threatened, or detained, and many of those detained are required to pay heavy fines as a condition for their release. Those regarded as leaders are usually kept in custody and either sentenced to prison terms or administratively detained without charge, without trial. And this, Mr. President, is the regime to whom we would grant most-favored-nation status. In January 1994, two national regulations on religious activities came into force. Notably, Mr. President, they banned religious activities which undermine national unity and social stability. Under the broad rubric of these two regulations, any activity could be construed as undermining the Chinese Government and, therefore, constitute a threat punishable by arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and bodily harm. These regulations also require that all places of religious activities be registered with the authorities according to rules formulated by China's Religious Affairs Bureau, an innocuous-sounding agency. This means, in effect, that religious groups that do not have official approval may not obtain registration and that those involved in religious activities in unregistered places may be detained and punished. Provided in these new regulations are detention and criminal penalties for any violation. And this is the regime to whom we would grant normal trade relations and most-favored-nation status. During this past year, police raids on religious gatherings organized by independent groups have continued, with hundreds of Protestants and Catholics reportedly detained as a result. More than 300 Christians were reported to have been detained in what appears to be a crackdown by police on unregistered Protestant houses and churches. And this is the Government to whom we want to extend MFN. I believe there is evidence of an intensified Chinese repression of religious liberty. This repression ranges from ransacking homes in Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to destroying or closing 18,000 Buddhist shrines last spring. Ministers, priests and monks are routinely arrested, imprisoned, tortured and sometimes killed for the mere expression of their faith. For example, let's take the case of Pastor Wong, who runs 40 evangelical churches. He was released in December after a fourth arrest for spreading the Gospel. This time, Mr. President, the government captors broke several of his fingers with pliers. This is the government to whom we would like to extend, again, MFN. I believe it is the obligation of the American Government to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom that we claim to espouse. By renewing MFN status to China, we are turning a blind eye to the oppressed in the interest of expanded trade opportunities. There must be some things that are even more important than the almighty dollar. Mr. President, in Paul Marshall's critically acclaimed book, ``Their Blood Cries Out,'' an authoritative book of religious persecutions around the globe, the case of Bishop Su is documented. During Bishop Su's 15 years in China's prison system, he was subjected to various forms of torture. One beating was so severe that the instrument of the beating actually splintered. Then the police ripped apart a wooden door frame and used it to continue the beating until it, too, disintegrated into splinters. The bishop was then hung by his wrists from a ceiling and beaten around the head. As appalling as this story is, in another encounter, this bishop was placed in a cell containing water at varying levels from ankle to hip deep where he was left for days unable to sit and unable to sleep. And, again, this is the regime to whom we would give most-favored-nation status. Every year, countless numbers of people are detained without charge in breach of the law or sentenced without trial to years of reeducation through labor at the discretion of police and local officials. For those who are charged, sentences are frequently imposed after unfair trials, with the verdict decided beforehand. In many cases, such verdicts even carry the death penalty. The Chinese legal system, like, I suppose, all legal systems, supports the established political and governmental institutions. However, it does not do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of law and fundamental human rights. The rule of law becomes subordinate to higher political goals, including the defeat of perceived political enemies within the nation of China. The vagueness and contradictory provisions of the law in China lead consistently to Chinese arbitrary enforcement and provides an open invitation to abuse of power. Repressive criminal legislation and the extensive system of administrative detention means that virtually anyone can be detained at the whim of individuals who happen to be in a position of power. As we discuss MFN for China, a vast array of laws and regulations continues to be used to detain or imprison political opponents or to warn political dissidents against opposition. The Chinese say over and over again that there are no political prisoners in China. Such an assertion is absurd on the surface and it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. People are routinely imprisoned because of their political views or beliefs, but are categorized simply as counterrevolutionaries, administrative detainees, or criminals. In January 1995, for instance, a Ministry of Justice official was cited as stating that 2,678 prisoners convicted of counterrevolutionary offenses were currently in jail. I believe, Mr. President, that this figure represents only a fraction of the real number of political prisoners held in China today. Furthermore, I believe that this figure excludes many thousands of people who are jailed for political reasons but convicted of other offenses or held under various forms of administrative detention who have not even been charged or tried. We all know that grave human rights violations have continued in China since 1995. They range from the arbitrary detention of people who peacefully express their views to gross violations of the physical integrity of the person and their very right to life. Dissent and any activity perceived as a threat to the established political order continues to be repressed. So as we debate MFN for China, thousands of political prisoners, including members of religious and ethnic groups, are in jail simply for expressing their views. Torture and ill-treatment continue to be common practices during arrest in police stations, detention centers, labor camps, prisons, and this often results in the death of these victims. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that at least a thousand people have been executed in China since the launch of a nationwide anticrime campaign in 1996. I call out to my colleagues that we must put pressure on China to stop these mass executions, many of which are carried out after only show trials. The political authorities in China have instructed the judiciary to speed up procedures to sentence offenders, including those liable to the death penalty. And I believe the result is untold miscarriages of justice. If we grant MFN to China in view of these practices, then we too are guilty of a miscarriage of justice. If we renew China's MFN status, as the administration wants us to, then I think we are derelict in our duty, this Congress' duty to uphold the principles of dignity and fundamental freedoms. If we really want to engage the Chinese, we have to show that we are willing to confront them when they break the rules. We have not done that. And we will not do that by granting them most-favored-nation status. For 4 consecutive years, from 1991 to 1995, the Chinese Government has successfully used a procedural motion to block any resolution critical of its human rights record being debated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Mr. President, no government should be allowed to choose the extent to which it will abide by international human rights laws. No government should be allowed to manipulate human rights issues to further its political aims. Newspapers in early April reported that China has been selling Iran the components of chemical weapons for several years. This was one in an ongoing series of reports about the Chinese military. The Chinese are also said to be dealing in nuclear weapons with Pakistan, buying advanced jet aircraft from Russia, and contracting for Russian-made aircraft carriers equipped with surface-to-surface missiles. This is the nation, this is the government, this is the regime that we say, ``You deserve again to have most-favored-nation status renewed,'' a nation that has a growing military capacity, that is increasing its military defense spending, has an expansionist view of its own territorial goals and has snubbed us at every turn in our seeking conciliation and moderation in their foreign policy? It seems while the administration would like Congress to renew MFN to China, they were and are fully aware of China's supplying Iran, Iraq and other enemies of the United States with deadly weapons-- conventional, chemical, and nuclear. Robert Einhorn, Deputy Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, has recently stated: These dual-use, chemical-related transfers to Iran's chemical weapons program indicates that, at minimum, China's chemical export controls are not operating effectively enough to ensure compliance with China's prospective obligation not to assist anyone in any way to acquire chemical weapons. Mr. Einhorn has also confirmed reports that China has been providing Iran with advanced C-802 cruise missiles capable of threatening United States warships in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, Mr. President, he testified to a Senate panel that: We have information of discussions between Iran and China about additional conventional weapons sales. We expect there will be more. That is what our State Department is saying about China's export controls. Mr. President, as for still other reports that China has been running a brisk sale of mobile, nuclear-capable M-11 nuclear components to Pakistan--2 years after it pledged not to do so--Mr. Einhorn said those reports are, in fact, correct. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, can China, under the current regime, be trusted to honor its treaty obligations? If China, our partner in engagement under the Clinton administration policy of constructive engagement, if China, our partner in engagement, supplies Iran, Iraq, and other enemies of the United States with deadly weapons, what in reality does that make China? Mr. President, the biggest question of all in this year's MFN debate should be, is United States trade with China in effect subsidizing a military buildup that will soon threaten not only Taiwan, Japan, and China's other Asian neighbors, but even our own national security? Mr. President, militarily, the administration has sought to strengthen Taiwan. We have shipped Patriot missiles to Taiwan, and Taiwanese pilots are at this moment in the United States being trained to use the F-16 jet fighters that America has also pledged to send to our ally. When the Chinese in effect blockaded Taiwan during a missile-testing exercise off its coast in March of last year, the President--and I commend him--responded with a firm show of America's force dispatching the Independence in the area. I ask, why, even though we deplore the Chinese military buildup in diplomacy and counter it in strategy, do we continue to help to finance it in trade? Mr. President, these are some very serious questions that go unanswered by the administration in their attempt to renew MFN to China. I am very concerned with the administration's obvious neglect and disregard for the United States Department of State's ``China Country Report on Human Rights'' for 1996. Mr. President, the findings are absolutely horrific. I urge my colleagues to listen closely as I read one passage from this report. I quote: Overall in 1996, the Chinese authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against the party and government was effectively silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison terms, administrative detention, or house arrest. No dissidents were known to be active at year's end. I repeat, ``No dissidents were known to be active at year's end.'' I continue the report: Serious human rights abuses persist in minority areas, including Tibet and Inner Mongolia. Controls on religion and other fundamental freedoms in these areas have also intensified. This report debunks the logic of engagement. We were told that the situation in China was going to get better. That is what I was told when I first came to Congress in 1993, that if we will grant MFN to China, if we will extend that again, that this policy of engagement would result in better human rights conditions in China. But they have not improved. The situation has only grown worse. I am astonished that the administration can justify renewal of MFN status for China, with what is provided in the report: the sale of women, religious persecution, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, continued disappearances of political rivals, et cetera. This important and vital report, overlooked by the administration, clearly states there are no free dissidents left in China today--not one, none. I understand the importance of trade. It is important to Arkansas. It is important to America. It is important to our farmers. It is important to our manufacturers. But, Mr. President, I am convinced either the President has not read the State Department's report and/or the administration has ignored its findings. Furthermore, China's human rights abuses, as described by the State Department, should be met with a heavy price, not a prize. Granting China special status only perpetuates their illegal and indecent actions toward the Chinese people. Some would say, you cannot talk that way about China. Some would say that this will offend China. But then Ronald Reagan had many critics when he called the Soviet Union the ``evil empire.'' Our goal is not to isolate China, but to awaken China to its inhumanity to its own people. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I just want to make one more plea to my colleagues not to turn a blind eye to the oppressed in the interest of trade opportunities. I urge my colleagues to stand up and voice their opposition to the treatment of the Chinese Government toward their own people. Mr. President, I urge this administration to rethink a narrowminded, nearsighted, and unengaging solution to human rights abuses. For 16 years--for 16 years--the United States has extended MFN status to China, and in doing so, we have tacitly endorsed everything from forced abortions to the sale of dangerous weapons to our enemies. I was talking to one of my colleagues early this week, and I told him that I have looked for 3 years for some scintilla of evidence that engagement has worked, I would like to vote for MFN, but I have not seen any evidence at all that this policy has improved the condition of the Chinese people or improved the human rights situation for those being oppressed in China. His response to me was, ``Tim, it takes time.'' Mr. President, time has run out for the thousands and thousands, who, today, find themselves in prison, and the families who have lost loved ones because of the oppressive regime that rules China. The United States must stand for something once again. The debate is about more than dollars and cents. It is about our values as a nation. Others of my colleagues have said, ``Well, we can't tell them what to do domestically.'' I would simply raise the question that it seems to be that the evidence is mounting daily that they have sought to tell us what to do domestically through influencing American elections. Eight years ago, the world looked on in awe and admiration for those thousands of students who stood with courage in Tiananmen Square. Tiananmen Square must not become a haunting but fading memory to the world and to the American people. So I ask my colleagues this question: Does not a little part, a little piece of the soul of this Nation die every time we turn away and allow freedom to be extinguished anywhere on this globe? Let us make a difference. We must confront China's abuses. The price of not doing so is simply too high.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, it is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I rise to voice support for S. 4, I think the aptly named ``Family Friendly Workplace Act.'' I think that is exactly what this bill does. It provides some friendliness in the Fair Labor Standards Act for the employees, for the workers in this Nation. I want to compliment and commend the Senator from Missouri for his leadership on this issue. I know of no one in this body more committed and more dedicated to the American family than the Senator from Missouri. And he demonstrated that I believe in his sponsorship and his championing of this cause and this bill. This bill will give American workers the flexibility to take paid time off for any reason by simply working those hours in advance, paid time off. I know there are many in this body who have worked hard for family and medical leave. That is unpaid family medical leave. Most in the U.S. Senate voted for the Family and Medical Leave Act, the unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act. Therefore, it puzzles me that so many of those who championed family and medical leave on a voluntary and unpaid basis will now oppose this legislation which will provide workers paid time off for any reason by simply working those hours in advance. It would make it possible, this bill, for modern families to harmonize the ever-increasing demands of family life and the workplace. Many employers have done their best to try to build some flexibility under the current law. And they have found themselves repeatedly in a virtual straitjacket. This legislation will provide them that much-needed flexibility to work with and on behalf of those whom it is their best interest to help, their employees, their own workers. This is an issue which has been recognized by those on both sides of the aisle as being crucial to the future of the American family in this country. Mothers need to be able to leave work early to attend parent-teacher conferences or whatever else may be important to the welfare of their families. Fathers need to be able to take off work early to go coach their children's Little League team or some other worthy activity that will benefit their families. S. 4 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act that applies to private- sector employees. That is those employees currently not eligible for comptime or flexible work programs. The individuals that I am referring to hold hourly positions such as clerical workers, mechanics, other low- or mid-level jobs that provide the backbone of our work force. The very individuals who need flexibility the most are those who currently are denied it under the current law. The Labor Department recently concluded a report to the Nation and to President Clinton entitled ``Working Women Count.'' Hundreds of thousands of working women were surveyed and the results speak volumes about the priorities of these women in the work force today. The No. 1 issue for these women was how difficult it is to balance work and family obligations. Their concerns are exactly what S. 4 is designed to address, how to continue meeting their responsibilities at work while also meeting their responsibilities at home to their families. Why do we need a bill like the Family Friendly Workplace Act? The current laws dealing with the workplace were developed in the 1930's. There are some who feel content. They feel that those 1930 laws, as well-intended as they were, should be set in concrete forever, never amended, never changed except to make periodic changes in the minimum wage. But the fact is, life in America has changed dramatically in the last 60 years. The structure and the composition of the typical American family has changed dramatically in the last 60 years. And it is time that we reflected those changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 1940, just 2 years after the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 67 percent of all American families were comprised of a husband that worked outside the home and a wife that did not. More than two- thirds of American families fit that basic model in 1940, just 2 years after the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and only 9 percent of families had two working spouses. Today that is no longer the case. Not only is it no longer the case it is just about the reverse, it is just about the opposite of that. By 1995, only 17 percent of families had husbands that worked while the wife stayed at home. In 1995, only 17 percent had that kind of classic Ozzie and Harriet household. Only 17 percent fit that model 2 years ago. In addition, almost 70 percent of single women headed families with children. So again, I point out, Madam President, the Department of Labor's own study revealed that the No. 1 issue women wanted to bring to the President's attention is the difficulty of balancing work and family obligations. Recent polling data reflects that 81 percent of women support flextime proposals, and 31 percent of women who work full time say the ability to work flexible hours is the single most important policy reform that could be instituted in the workplace to ease this dilemma, this struggle of balancing a family and work pressures, to reduce stress, and to increase productivity. So, 8 out of 10 women support the concept of this bill championed by Senator Ashcroft of Missouri. Nearly one out of three put flextime at the very top of the list of workplace reforms that will provide help to the family. I know I have been talking mostly about how this bill will benefit women in the work force. But it is not just women who feel so strongly about this issue. A poll conducted by Penn & Schoen Associates showed that most Americans prefer options in compensation for working overtime. They want options, they want more flexibility. In fact, 75 percent favor allowing employees the choice of getting time and a half either in wages or as time off, 75 percent favor that. Madam President, 57 percent would take time off instead of being paid if that option were made available to them. Not by coercion. I heard that word. Not by pressure. I heard that word. But they voluntarily desire that option and would take it were it made available to them. Then Money magazine recently conducted a poll which concluded that 64 percent of Americans and 68 percent of women would rather have their overtime in the form of time off rather than cash wages. Madam President, the evidence is overwhelming, the American people want more flexibility in their work schedules. This bill provides it. The Family Friendly Workplace Act guarantees all Americans the right to have this flexibility. Unfortunately, many misconceptions have been perpetrated about what this bill actually does. Let me just set the record straight on what I believe are some gross mischaracterizations of this legislation. The single most important thing that the American worker needs to know about the Family Friendly Workplace Act is that its provisions are completely--completely-- voluntary. As I was listening to debate here on the Senate floor I was turning through the bill. It is always helpful to read the bill. I believe the language is very plain and unequivocal: An employer that provides compensatory time off under paragraph 2 to an employee shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee. So the most important thing to remember is that the provisions of this bill are entirely completely voluntary. No employer can force a worker to take time off rather than overtime pay. In fact, S. 4 imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers who attempt to coerce or intimidate their employees into taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. Those penalties are increased. Flexible time can only be initiated at the employee's request. So worker protections would really be greater under this legislation than under current law. And it is, I say again, totally--totally--voluntary. Another misconception is that workers would only be able to take the time off at the discretion of their employers. S. 4 allows an employee to take time off within a reasonable period after making the request as long as their absence would not unduly disrupt the employer's operations. This standard has been used since 1985 for Government employees. It has resulted in very few disputes, and most notably has won rave reviews from these Federal workers who have had this option made available to them. They have not seen themselves as the pawns of management. They have not seen themselves abused, but rather they have seen this as an option that they wanted to take advantage of. They have approved of it. It has worked admirably. It has won rave reviews. It is interesting to note that Federal employees have enjoyed a compensatory time-off option since 1945, and flexible work schedules since 1978, while private-sector employees must still operate under the rules established almost 60 years ago. Furthermore, the comptime and flextime provisions of the bill are completely voluntary and do not affect collective bargaining agreements. Some would like to portray this bill as a coercive attempt to undermine the unions. Nothing could be further from the truth. S. 4 is a bill that recognizes the importance of one particular union, and that is the union of family, a mother, a father, children, and the relationship that they have to their employer. And this bill will enhance that contractual agreement. It will enhance that union that exists within family. It will put a modicum of flexibility and reasonableness into labor law and into workplace management. So let me just say, in concluding my remarks, there are two things I think are absolutely essential to remember. No. 1, it is voluntary. I am so tired of hearing the words ``pressure'' and ``intimidation'' and ``coercion'' because the language of this bill is absolutely plain and clear that that is not only not tolerated, it is illegal, whether it is implied or otherwise, and the sanctions and the penalties are actually enhanced over current law. The second thing that I urge my colleagues to remember is not only is it voluntary, but it is tried and it is proved and has been successful. Federal employees have enjoyed this, and it is high time that we gave the workers of America the same benefits that Federal employees have enjoyed for years. And it is voluntary. You cannot coerce it. It is absolutely and totally voluntary and it has been proven it works. It is time we extend those benefits to others. This bill takes a giant step in altering the all-too-obvious dilemma American workers presently face in trying to balance family and work responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to put families first and support S. 4. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great patriot who has served over 54 years in the Federal Government. On May 15, 1997, Raymond ``Ray'' T. Reid, retired from the U.S. House of Representatives, where he worked as a chief of staff for 23 years, lending his expertise and leadership to three different Congressmen representing the Third District of Arkansas. I was one of those fortunate Members who had the privilege of working with Ray for the 4 years that I served in the House. When I was first elected to Congress in 1992, I replaced John Paul Hammerschmidt, a retiring Member who had represented the Third District for 26 years, and had become a legend both on Capitol Hill and in the State of Arkansas. However, it was no secret that behind this great politician was Ray Reid, a man who over the years had become an Arkansas legend himself. When John Paul retired, his work continued on through Ray's service and dedication. As a newly elected freshman, Ray provided my office with continuity, efficiency, stability, and a wisdom that could only come from 19 years of being a chief of staff. The successful career of Ray Reid began long before he worked on Capitol Hill. Ray began his career back in 1942 when he left Bowdoin College in Brunswick, ME, to join the U.S. Army to defend our Nation in World War II. Following the war, he rose quickly up the ranks, receiving honors for his leadership ability and outstanding achievement. He made the Army his career for 31 years, where he served on both foreign soil and here in the United States. Ray moved his family several times, living in countries around the globe. He fought for freedom and justice in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam in addition to faithfully serving his country in peacetime. He continued his service undiminished until December 31, 1973, when he retired from the Army as a colonel. Having worked in the Office of the Congressional Liaison at the Pentagon, Ray was able to make a smooth, natural transition to working in a congressional office. He brought to Congressman Hammerschmidt's office a vast degree of knowledge from several years of international exposure and a solid background in domestic policy. By the time Ray came to work for me, he was an invaluable resource who possessed a wealth of information and experience. Throughout his tenure as chief of staff in my office, he provided guidance and an institutional knowl- edge which would have been difficult to match. I can say without hesitance that Ray Reid conducted legislative business with the highest ethical standards. The best interests of the residents of the Third District were always placed above partisan politics and our office was managed in a way that was beyond reproach. When I moved over to the Senate, Ray demonstrated his commitment to the constituents of the Third District once again by agreeing to see another freshman, my brother, Asa, through the transition process. So, today, as Ray enjoys the first Monday that he doesn't need to go to work after over a half a century of public service, on behalf of the State of Arkansas and the people he touched here on Capitol Hill, I want to offer my deepest thanks to a man whose loyalty and friendship will not be forgotten. Truly a job well done.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding. Mr. President, I rise in respectful but very, very strong opposition to the Daschle amendment. I want to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his courageous leadership on an issue that deserves to be debated and a ban which deserves to be passed. I believe that abortion and the human life issue in this country are the great moral issues that confront our society. I heard my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, say that we voted 52 times in the last Congress on the issue of abortion. And she said, ``Are we any better off?'' I would suggest that while we debate balanced budget amendments, while we debate chemical weapons treaties, and while we debate a host of important issues, there is no issue more important to the future of our country, to civilization, and to the kind of people we are going to be than the sanctity of human life. If it takes 52 votes, then it is worth it. Many of today's politicians will run for cover at the very mention of abortion, even at the term ``partial-birth abortion.'' How do we call ourselves leaders if we are not willing to grapple, to debate, to struggle, to agonize and reach moral conclusions as to this great issue confronting who we are as a people and what kind of civilization we are going to be. I heard over and over the proponents of the Daschle amendment, the opponents of the ban on partial-birth abortions, that it is hard to imagine that we would be debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate with those who would oppose a ban on the most horrific, barbaric procedure imaginable. But that is what we are doing. I heard them over and over say, ``Let's keep politicians out of it; shouldn't have politicians getting involved in such an issue''; suggested that Government should stay out of the abortion issue. If the protection of innocent human life is not Government's duty, then what is? Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``The care of human life, not its destruction, is the first and only legitimate objective of good government.'' Then Jefferson went on. He said, ``Legislative efforts to protect the weak and defenseless are right, and should be pursued.'' Isn't that the proper role of Government--to protect those who are weak, to protect those who are defenseless? Should we not, in Jefferson's words, ``pursue'' those legislative efforts? I believe we should. To me it is the great irony of the Daschle amendment because in every speaker who has advocated and spoken in favor of the Daschle amendment there has been a dichotomy. There has been, ``Keep Government out. Oh, this is tough. This is a tough ban. Keep Government out of this. Leave it with the physician. But we will throw that physician in jail. The Daschle abortion ban spares viable fetuses, proposals stricter than the GOP measure. They will throw him in jail, and then, keep Government out.'' To my colleagues, I say you can't have it both ways. It is clever. It sounds good. The reason we have this amendment today is because the polls say that 70 percent of the American people support a ban on this terrible, terrible medical procedure, if you can call it a medical procedure--partial-birth abortion. That is why this amendment is being offered. I hope that after this debate is over, Senator Daschle will offer this as a freestanding bill. I think it has problems. I do not think it will do all what he believes it will do, what I think he sincerely believes it will do, but if he is sincere in this, it will be offered as a freestanding bill, and we will take this up through the legislative process. The reason the President has said he will support the Daschle amendment, in my opinion, is simply that he knows it is no ban. It is, in the words of George Will, ``a law that can't be violated.'' In fact, the ultimate arbiter becomes the physician, in this case the abortion provider. Seventy percent of the American people say we need this ban and support it. In March of this year, Arkansas, my home State, joined with seven other States in banning such a procedure. The State legislature passed the bill. Gov. Mike Huckabee signed the bill into law. And I believe that the home State of our President has, in enacting that legislation, in passing our own partial-birth abortion ban in the State of Arkansas, they have sent a message to the President of the United States, our former Governor, our native son, that the people of his home State do not want this procedure legal in this country. Partial-birth abortion is barbaric; it is uncivilized; it is shockingly close to infanticide; and no civilized country should allow it. It is that simple. Any woman knows that the first step of a partial-birth abortion--breech delivery--is something to avoid, not something to cause purposely. The rhetoric surrounding this issue is amazing. Those who would allow unlimited partial-birth abortions characterize the procedure as one that is used very rarely and only in an absolute emergency and only where no other procedure is available. They would have you believe that all those who have this procedure want to carry their pregnancy to term and have the child. These claims are simply wrong and they are unfounded. A quote that is extremely interesting to me is from Jean Wright, associate professor of Pediatrics at Emory University. Ms. Wright was testifying against the argument that fetuses who are candidates for a partial-birth abortion do not feel pain during the procedure. She testified that the fetus is sensitive to pain, perhaps even more sensitive than a full-term infant. She added, and this is the part that is especially striking, ``This procedure, if it was done on an animal in my institution, would not make it through the institutional review process. The animal would be more protected than this child is.'' It is incredible. We are protecting animals better than we protect unborn, viable fetuses. Making one class of humanity expendable, I believe, devalues all humanity. In fact, the rejection of life's sanctity begins a downward journey toward human debasement. I was interviewed, as we all have been interviewed, by a reporter. I was interviewed yesterday, and the reporter asked an interesting question. She asked this: Won't this ban start us down a slippery slope that will end up banning all abortions? Interesting choice of words, ``slippery slope,'' because now in this country we debate assisted suicides, we debate partial-birth abortions. The slippery slope has been in our slow debasement and devaluing of the worth and sanctity and dignity of human life. That is the slippery slope. Over the last few months there has been some breakthrough, I think, in information that is being disseminated. The confession of Ron Fitzsimmons was very telling when he admitted that he ``lied through his teeth'' to the Nation. I cannot help but wonder after this vote is over if 2 months, 3 months down the road we will not find again that there has been a campaign of disinformation to prevent this ban from being enacted. I even now ask my colleagues to look deep within their souls. They have been misled. They have been sold a bill of goods. They have every justification for switching a vote and voting for this ban and voting to override an expected veto. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus. That is what Ron Fitzsimmons said. That is what he admitted. He is an advocate of abortion. He goes on to say that the abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so probably, does everyone else. One of the facts of abortion is that women enter the abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing. You are ending a life. That is what the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers confessed. Syndicated columnist Richard Cohen admitted he ``was led to believe that late-term abortions were extremely rare and performed only when the life of the mother was in danger or the fetus irreparably deformed.'' Realizing the mistake, and I quote again, he said, ``I was wrong.'' Wouldn't it be refreshing if some of those who were misled would simply say, ``I was wrong. I will change my vote.'' Could I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania for an additional 5 minutes?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Now we have the Daschle amendment before us. The facts have not changed. I think many are beginning to see the truth on this issue, the truth behind the partial-birth abortion myth. The next myth that we have to overcome in this debate is that the President and his congressional allies have a viable alternative to the partial-birth abortion ban, that this amendment that we are debating even now is a legitimate alternative to a ban on partial-birth abortions. Well, that is a myth. George Will said, ``It is a law that's impossible to violate.'' He is right. It is an amendment that pro- abortion allies can support so they can tell their constituents they supported a ban, I believe. And, again, I hope that this will be introduced as a freestanding bill because I think in that situation, we will be able to see exactly where the flaws are as it is debated in a committee, as it is scrutinized. The Daschle proposal would explicitly allow abortion even in the third trimester if an abortionist simply asserts that ``continuation of the pregnancy would risk grievous injury to the mother.'' That is all he has to say. That's all the abortionist has to say. In effect, the Daschle amendment would allow partial-birth abortions on demand in the fifth and sixth months of the baby's development when the vast majority of such abortions are performed. So the vast majority of partial-birth abortions--this procedure that is universally condemned--would be permitted under the Daschle amendment, it would not affect them at all, would not stop a one, even though we know that many of those preborn infants can now survive even before the third trimester because of advanced technology. I recently visited the Children's Hospital in Little Rock, AR. I was absolutely amazed at the neonatal unit and what is being done today in lowering the age of viability. On the basis of recent published interviews with abortionists who perform these procedures as well as the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, it appears likely that 90 percent or more of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months, not the third trimester. The Daschle amendment will not affect those partial-birth abortions at all. One of Senator Daschle's arguments against adding second-trimester language is that Roe versus Wade prohibits second-trimester abortions. But in the official report of the House Judiciary Committee on the bill, the committee argues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is not protected by Roe versus Wade. It is not protected by Roe versus Wade since the baby is mostly outside the womb throughout the procedure, and Roe versus Wade refers to fetuses inside the womb. So to say we cannot address the second-trimester issue of partial- birth abortions because it is protected by Roe versus Wade is to beg the issue and to avoid, I think, good legal opinion. Many lawmakers who support Roe versus Wade also support the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act, some of them explicitly citing the Judiciary Committee's constitutional argument. In addition, several States have passed bills to ban partial-birth abortions at any point in the pregnancy with only a life-of-the-mother exception. It appears, therefore, that many State legislators do not share the Democratic leader's view that they are powerless to prevent partial-birth abortions in the fifth and sixth months. My home State of Arkansas, as I mentioned earlier, is one of those States that does not share in that opinion. Moreover, the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, a coalition of over 500 physicians, including professors and department chairmen in obstetrics and gynecology, has emphasized that not only is a partial- birth abortion never necessary to preserve a woman's health or future fertility, but this procedure can, in fact, pose a significant threat to both. While there may be a medical circumstance which requires a fetus to be delivered early, there is none--none--which requires killing the fetus and certainly none requiring that a fetus be partly delivered and then killed as during a partial-birth abortion. The Daschle proposal would allow any abortionist to kill a baby even after viability merely by signing a permission slip to himself, a so- called certification, and once the abortion provider signs such a piece of paper, this amendment would give that abortion provider complete immunity from any penalty, even if there is overwhelming objective evidence that he aborted a healthy, viable baby of a mother who is not at risk, because he signed that certification. The House passed H.R. 1122, its version, with a margin sufficient to override a Presidential veto. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join our House colleagues in such a vote here. There is nothing, I believe, that will define us as a people, there is nothing that will define us as a civilization more than how we speak on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated May 7, 1997, from PHACT be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, most of the time when I stand on this floor following Senator Wellstone, I will be on the opposite side of Senator Wellstone's comments. This evening, I would like to associate myself with the comments that Senator Wellstone made. I think between the two of us, we pretty well cover the political spectrum as we stand today on the floor of the United States Senate and call for the immediate release of Wei Jingsheng, China's most prominent political prisoner. Because of his courageous stand as a voice for democracy and human rights, Wei Jingsheng was sentenced in 1979 to 15 years in prison. He served 14\1/2\ years of his term and was released in September 1993 as part of China's bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Wei continued to speak out for human rights and was detained, again, by the Chinese Government less than 6 months after his release. Wei Jingsheng was first jailed in 1979 because of his peaceful activities and writings during China's democracy wall movement, notably his famous essay, ``The Fifth Modernization--Democracy.'' Following his release from prison in September 1993, he met with journalists and diplomats, wrote articles for publications abroad and continued to assert the rights and aspirations of the Chinese people. Mr. President, on December 13, 1995, Wei Jingsheng was tried and convicted of the totally unfounded charge of conspiring to subvert the Chinese Government. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison and 3 years deprivation of his political rights. Human rights organizations and governments around the world have condemned the trial and severe sentence. We, the Congress, have unanimously adopted resolutions calling for Wei's immediate and unconditional release. The European Parliament has also called for his release, declaring that Wei had been ``persecuted because he was demanding democratic rights for Chinese people.'' Mr. President, it is my understanding that Wei's family has appealed to the United Nations for help, increasingly concerned about his failing health, which has further deteriorated. Though he is no longer in solitary confinement, Wei is under constant surveillance from other inmates while cell lights are on 24 hours a day, visits by his family are restricted, and he has no access to outside medical care. Wei Jingsheng remains a symbol of hope in China for those within China who are voiceless. They have steadfastly refused to give up their beliefs, their principles and their commitment to democratic reforms, despite the suffering and punishment that they have endured. I believe that by honoring Wei for his courageous commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, we will draw attention to the ongoing struggle for fundamental human rights in the People's Republic of China at a crucial time in that nation's history. Calling for the immediate release of Wei sends a strong message to China on behalf of the entire international community. On Friday of last week, I joined a bipartisan and bicameral effort in honoring Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, along with Mr. Harry Wu, at the third anniversary of the Vietnam Human Rights Day. As I speak today, Dr. Que still remains in prison unable to leave Vietnam to seek medical attention and unable to speak freely about the abuses he has suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese Government. Of course, Mr. Wu, who fought for representative government and human rights in China for many years, was persecuted and held as a prisoner of conscience by China's Communist dictatorship. He was eventually allowed to emigrate to the United States where he has, thankfully, continued his efforts to help the Chinese people gain liberty and human dignity. On August 25, 1995, Mr. Wu was expelled from China and returned safely to San Francisco. While this case was notable because Mr. Wu is a naturalized American citizen, the Chinese Government holds many thousands of prisoners who, like Mr. Wu and Wei Jingsheng, are guilty of nothing more than speaking out in defense of human liberty. While the cases of Mr. Wu, Wei Jingsheng and Dr. Nguyen Dan Que may differ, they are all representative of human rights abuses around the world, and especially by the Chinese Government. For too many years, Mr. President, these courageous individuals have been deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to self- determination concerning fundamental human and political aspirations. I say again, for too many years, they have been denied those rights. Furthermore, it has been almost 3 years since the United States formally delinked American trade with China from its human rights performance of abuse. I say to my colleagues that much has changed in China, but it has not changed for the better. We now see a human rights situation that is worse by every measure: persecution of Christians, forced abortions, sterilization of the mentally handicapped and kangaroo courts for democratic dissenters. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned with the mounting campaign of religious persecutions waged by the rulers of China. The Roman Catholic Church has effectively been made illegal in China. Priests, bishops, and people of faith have been imprisoned and harassed. China's recent moves have menaced Hong Kong, in violation of their agreements with Britain and their assurances to the United States. Forty percent of education and social services in that colony are currently run by church-related agencies. China's action in suspending the Hong Kong Bill of Rights threatens the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of religion. I believe that these arguments will come to a boil again in coming weeks, when this Congress votes once more on most-favored-nation status for China. It is the obligation of the American Government to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom for all peoples. We must not turn a blind eye to the oppressed in the interest of expanded trade opportunities. The idea that expanded trade would somehow result in improved human rights conditions in China has been disproved. It simply has not happened. Today's statements calling for the immediate release of Wei Jingsheng heeds hope for those who are victims of oppression. I look forward to the day when all peoples enjoy the countless freedoms that we have in the United States. I salute the efforts of Wei Jingsheng, Mr. Harry Wu, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, and I urge my colleagues to stand up and voice their opposition to the treatment of these political dissenters and these defenders of liberty and, furthermore, we should stand against all human rights abuses around the world. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday, the Senate resume consideration of S. 717 and Senator Gregg be recognized for up to 10 minutes in order to withdraw his amendment, and there be, then, 20 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Gorton and Jeffords; and immediately following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Gorton amendment No. 243, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Smith amendment No. 245; immediately following that vote, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 5, the House companion measure, if it is received from the House and if the Senate language is identical to the House bill. I further ask consent that there be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to the second vote and 4 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member prior to the third vote and, additionally, the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes in length; and, finally, immediately following those votes, Senator Stevens be recognized to speak in morning business for not to exceed 45 minutes, to be followed by Senator Leahy for not to exceed 45 minutes, and further, following that time, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 31, H.R. 1122, a bill to ban partial- birth abortions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Missouri for his eloquent, compassionate statement on behalf of the families of America and on behalf of the Mothers of America. I appreciate his leadership on this bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced legislation that I believe is desperately needed by millions of uninsured Americans who are employed by small businesses. The problem of the uninsured--both children and adults--is largely a problem of small businesses lacking access to affordable health insurance. When I first came to Congress in 1993 on the House side, health insurance coverage and accessibility was at the forefront of public debate. This year, it seems as if all of the attention is focused upon health insurance coverage for children--a very important topic indeed. If we can provide access for millions of adults in this country, we can extend access to health care for millions of children. We know that there are more than 40 million uninsured Americans, and that 10 million of those 40 million Americans are children. It is these children who are the most vulnerable in our society. If we do not provide these children with quality health care in their early years, we will find the cost of providing health care for them as they grow older to be ever higher. Not providing quality health care for our children translates into higher health costs for all of us. A closer examination reveals that 80 percent of these individuals-- that is the 40 million who are uninsured--live in families with an employed worker who is likely to work for a small employer, or who is self-employed. That is, they are drawing a paycheck. And, yet, they don't have health insurance. In fact, only 26 percent of the workers in companies of 10 employees or less receive health insurance through their employer, while nearly all workers in Fortune 500 companies have health insurance available to them. This, of course, is because many small employers simply cannot afford high health premiums and the high administrative costs associated with health insurance today. So, if you work for a small business with 10 employees or less, the odds are three to one that you don't have health insurance. If we can solve this problem so that millions of Americans who are working for small businesses can obtain health insurance, we will have taken a huge step toward providing health insurance for all Americans. According to a February General Accounting Office study, while many employers remain committed to providing employee and family coverage, the percentage of people with private coverage is declining in America. At the very time that we want to expand health insurance for millions of children in this country, at the very time that we have a goal of providing universal health coverage to all Americans, we are finding that the percentage of people with health coverage is declining. One of the primary reasons for this decline is eroding financial support. Each year between the late 1980's and 1994, increases in employers' cost to provide health insurance to their employees and their employees' families outpaced inflation, with cost growth of 18 percent in one single year. With the surge in health insurance premium costs, many employers have reevaluated their commitment to provide health coverage to employees and their families. It is understandable. With health care inflation, increasing at as much as 18 percent a year in certain instances, it is little wonder that employers are reevaluating whether they are going to be able to afford to provide health coverage to their employees and to their employees' families. Some employers--particularly smaller employers--have dropped their health care coverage altogether. Many employers that have chosen to continue to offer benefits, have been forced to raise employees' premiums, creating more out of pocket expenses for their employees--which is essentially a pay cut. The percentage of Americans with private health insurance dropped from 75 percent in 1989 to 71 percent in 1995. During the same time period, private health insurance coverage for children under the age of 18 decreased from 73 percent to 66 percent. If private coverage levels had not decreased, it is estimated that about 5 million more children and 5 million more adults would have private health insurance. To my colleagues, I say that we are actually losing ground in our efforts to provide health insurance for all Americans. Small employers also cannot afford costly State mandated benefit requirements, which studies show can add up to 30 percent of health care costs. According to a December 1996 study by Blue Cross-Blue Shield, the number of State mandated benefit requirements has soared over the past 20 years. For example, the State of Florida had enacted only two insurance related mandates in 1976. In just 20 years, the number of State insurance mandates in the State of Florida has increased to 36. In my home State of Arkansas, the number has more than quintupled over the same 20-year period. State mandates are increasing exponentially all over the Nation. It is important to realize that while the number of people with private insurance has declined, the number of people with Medicaid coverage has increased. Unless the decline in private coverage abates, taxpayers may face increased costs for health care as we see more and more people enroll in the Medicaid system. The Expanded Portability and Health Insurance Coverage Act, which I introduced yesterday, will help alleviate the problem of the uninsured by removing barriers that prevent small businesses from providing health insurance to their employees. Most small businesses want to provide these benefits, but they find that there are innumerable, costly barriers that prevent them from doing so. This legislation will give associations and franchise networks the opportunity to form multistate purchasing groups under a single set of national rules, through the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. The EPHIC bill will make health insurance more affordable for small employers in several important ways. First, it will lower administrative costs. Second, it will provide greater bargaining power to smaller employers to negotiate better agreements with health plans and providers. Finally, it will eliminate the need for small businesses to comply with costly State-mandated benefit requirements which, as I mentioned, studies indicate amount to 30 percent in additional cost. To put this in this perspective, just last week, a constituent came into my office and told me the following story. He is an employer with about 150 employees in Little Rock, AR. He shopped around for health insurance for his employees, and generously agreed to pay 90 percent of their health insurance premiums. Just last year, he was faced with a 25-percent increase in his health care costs--a 25- percent increase. Now, his only choices are to drastically decrease the amount of benefits provided to his employees, or raise the premiums for his employees and the portion they pay, or, as so many small businesses are doing today, drop coverage altogether. The EPHIC bill will help millions of employers who, like my constituent in Little Rock, AR, really want to provide health benefits to their employees. While expanding insurance coverage to American workers and their families, the EPHIC bill also contains important consumer safeguards that would apply to multigroup plans that self-insure. They include mandatory stop-loss insurance, reserve requirements, solvency indemnification standards, and strict fiduciary responsibilities, and nondiscrimination requirements. The EPHIC bill is supported by a broad coalition of over 100 organizations, and has bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are over 100 cosponsors of this bill in the House of Representatives. I am very pleased that Senator Lott, Senator Hollings, Senator Brownback, Senator Roberts, and Senator Landrieu have joined as original cosponsors of this very, very important legislation. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join in support of this legislation as well. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend Senator Stevens for his fair role as gatekeeper. I want to particularly commend the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and Senator Graham of Florida, for taking their leadership on a very important issue, a true issue of equity and fairness. I think it is unfortunate that, in the middle of a very delicate process of reauthorizing the ISTEA legislation, we have to be debating an amendment that only seeks to implement current law. That is all the Warner-Graham amendment does. It implements current law. We are not seeking anything that is unfair to any other State. We are merely looking to ensure a fair allocation of these funds. To me it is very frustrating that the Appropriations Committee felt that it had to change current law implemented in 1991 under the ISTEA bill so that we could have this funding arrangement. The donor-donee debate will go on. I only want to say that while I recognize all of the arguments, when we talk about fairness, just remember the State of Arkansas where we, like so many other States, have tremendous transportation needs. We are 16th in the Nation in public roads and street length. We are 42d in the Nation in disbursements for these highways. While we need a national highway system, that kind of inequity I don't believe can be justified, and it shouldn't be exacerbated by changing this law to hold harmless the donee States. Arkansas has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the Nation. It is coming up, but it is very low. And we right now are paying more into the highway trust fund to benefit those States, most of whom have much higher per capita incomes and no more transportation needs than we have in the State of Arkansas. So I believe the effort to change current law in order to hold harmless and in effect create an entirely new funding formula is unfair. When ISTEA was passed in 1991, the formula was specifically adjusted for fiscal year 1999 so that States like Arkansas and many other States could have a more equitable funding formula. That 1997 adjustment finally went into the account to correct the inequality that had existed for donor States for many, many years. Even then, it was not perfectly equitable. But it was closer than it had been. So, when the Appropriations Committee added extra funds to the supplemental appropriations bill, it seemed logical and it seemed reasonable that they would use the fiscal year 1997 formula to distribute the funds. But logic, unfortunately, has not prevailed. They decided they would use the fiscal year 1996 formula so that, in their words, ``no State shall receive an amount in fiscal year 1997 that is less than the amount they received in fiscal year 1996.'' Basically the committee said that, although ISTEA was specifically structured to benefit donor States, those who pay in more than they receive back, the Appropriations Committee rejected that provision and added extra money so that the donee States would be happy. I think that is wrong. I think that is unfair. The law is the law. And, had that language not been added, the $475 million would have been credited by the current 1997 ISTEA structure. Instead, many States, including Arkansas, would not be receiving any of that $475 million. So let me just say that in the interest of fairness, yes, there are always winners and losers. But we need not exacerbate the winner-loser scenario by passing this supplemental appropriations in its current form. I ask my colleagues to support the Warner-Graham amendment in the name of fairness, in the name of equity for those States that have for so long gotten the short end of that economic stick. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to especially applaud this evening the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Arizona for their courageous opposition to this treaty. I also want to recognize the good and patriotic Americans and Senators who have differed on this treaty and have come down to different places on how they are going to vote. But this treaty is not about who is committed to and who believes in the elimination of chemical warfare in this world. I believe all of us are equally committed to that goal. I rise in opposition to the CWC because I simply believe that it is a flawed treaty in which we claim to verify the unverifiable, we are ratifying the unenforceable, and we are trusting the untrustworthy. We are binding ourselves and our friends, while those that we should be most concerned about go unrestrained and undeterred. When addressing the ratification of a treaty, we in this body are executing one of our most solemn duties. When addressing our Nation's security and when addressing our Nation's sovereignty, our watch words should be ``prudence'' and ``caution.'' I believe that prudence and caution call out for a ``no'' vote. By ratifying this treaty, we spurn the sage advice of former Secretaries of Defense. And I close with the words of one of those Secretaries, Secretary Cheney, who wrote that ``This accord is worse than no treaty at all.'' So, while I recognize and applaud the sincerity and the passion with which the advocates of this treaty have spoken and how they articulated their position, I believe firmly that it is not in the interest of the sovereignty and the security of the United States. And I urge a ``no'' vote on the treaty ratification. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today to voice my serious reservations about the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The most important standards for an effective treaty are: Verifiability, protection to the signatories, constitutionality, and the applicability to nations of most concern. I sincerely believe that the CWC falls short in each of these basic requirements. On April 8, 1997 three former Secretaries of Defense appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging Senators to vote against the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This fact alone should give this body great pause in the consideration of this treaty. I know that there are good, there are loyal, and there are patriotic Americans on both sides of this issue of ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention. I have many constituents who have called me, and said, ``Senator, how do we know? We hear former Secretaries of Defense saying it is a bad treaty. We hear Colin Powell saying it is a good treaty. Today we hear former Senator Dole saying we need to ratify this. How do we know?'' I believe that it is simply our responsibility as Senators, respecting the differences that exist, to study this, to evaluate it, and to make a reasoned judgment. I believe also when our national security is at risk that we must always opt on the side of caution in consideration of a treaty such as we have before us. Madam President, the opinions of Secretaries Schlesinger, Rumsfeld, Weinberger, and Cheney regarding this treaty should not be taken lightly. On April 7, in a letter to Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Secretary of Defense Cheney wrote, and I am quoting, Mr. President: The technology to manufacture chemical weapons is simply too ubiquitous, covert chemical warfare programs too easily concealed, and the international community's record of responding effectively to violations of arms control treaties too unsatisfactory to permit confidence that such a regime would actually reduce the chemical threat. Indeed, some aspects of the present convention, notably its obligation to share with potential adversaries like Iran, chemical manufacturing technology that can be used for military purposes and chemical defensive equipment, threaten to make this accord worse than having no treaty at all. Those words of Dick Cheney have echoed in my mind--``worse than having no treaty at all''. He said, if I might summarize, that the manufacture of chemical weapons is too widespread, concealing it is too easy, and enforcement is too uncertain for us to ratify this treaty. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement from Dick Cheney be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Ten minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, Secretary Cheney's statement sends a clear message to the American people that this treaty does not effectively deal with the threat of chemical and biological weapons. As we begin this debate on the CWC, the American people, with justification, will ask their leaders how and where they stand on the issue of chemical weapons. I stand here today wanting to tell the American people that this Congress will do everything in its power to rid our world of chemical and biological weapons, however, the CWC is not global, is not verifiable, is not constitutional, and quite frankly, it will not work. While the intent of the CWC is to create a global chemical weapons ban, accomplishing that goal does seem unlikely. Six countries with chemical weapons programs--including all of those with aggressive programs--have not yet signed the CWC. So how then can we call this a global treaty? Neither Iraq, Libya, Syria, nor North Korea have signed or ratified the CWC. China, Pakistan, and Iran have signed the CWC, but have not ratified it. Russia has signed the CWC, but has not ratified it. These rogue nations of Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria represent a clear threat to United States security and the security of key United States allies. All of these countries have active, aggressive programs to develop and produce chemical weapons. Let's be clear about one important thing. The administration has refused to ban inspectors from rogue nations such as Iran and China. That will be one of the reservations that we will have the opportunity to vote on. And it is one of those reservations that I find it incomprehensible that the administration has found unacceptable--banning inspectors from rogue nations such as Iran and China. In addition, there are intelligence reports that have recently indicated that Russia has already begun to cheat, even before the CWC has gone into effect. These facts alone give substance to opposing the treaty. Madam President, inherent in the CWC is a requirement that we share our advanced chemical defensive gear with countries like Iran and China. It is important to recognize that rogue nations, through reverse engineering, can easily figure out how to infiltrate our technologies. This would not only increase the chances of a chemical attack, but more importantly this would endanger our troops around the world. Let us be crystal clear on the fact that once there is a free-for-all of U.S. chemical and defensive technologies between the proposed signatories of this treaty, it will quite frankly be impossible to stop the transfer of this information to the rogue nations, that do not sign the CWC. I believe that the CWC will not increase pressure on rogue regimes. The CWC will not result in an international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The Geneva Convention of 1925 already established that norm. How many times has this prohibition been violated by Iraq, on the Kurds and even in the case of our own troops? Madam President, it took 5 years before the Pentagon came forward with information pertaining to the exposure of our own troops to certain chemical and biological substances that could affect the health and well-being of our 700,000 U.S. service people in the gulf. The rogues have demonstrated that they will plan for the use of, threaten the use of, and indeed use chemical weapons despite international norms. We must, to the best of our ability, avoid the horrible events of the 1980's, when the international community witnessed the horrors of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against its own people. Since that time, sanctions against Iraq have been strong and effective. The CWC will not address any shortcomings in these sanctions. Madam President, how can the CWC be global if these so-called rogue nations have not signed the CWC? The bottom line seems to be that the CWC is most applicable to the countries of least concern to the United States. It may help us with Great Britain, but provide no protection regarding North Korea or Iraq. It is my understanding, that under article XII of the treaty, members caught violating treaty provisions are simply threatened with a restriction or suspension of convention privileges. At worst, a report will be sent to the U.N. General Assembly and the U.N. Security Council. Mr. President, how does a report protect the American people? Madam President, with no predetermined sanctions in place to deter potential violators, the CWC seems ineffective and unenforceable. I am very sensitive to the needs and wishes of the small business- man. And while large multinational chemical corporations can bear the estimated astronomical costs regarding reporting requirements of a CWC member nation, these costs constitute a significant burden, in some cases an overwhelming burden, to small businesses, not just in Arkansas but all around America. There are roughly 230 small businesses which custom-synthesize made-to-order products and compete with large chemical manufacturers. It is my understanding that they generally have fewer than 100 employees and have annual sales of less than $40 million each. Few, if any, of them can afford to employ legions of lawyers just to satisfy the new reporting requirements of the CWC. Let us be realistic. Can these burdensome reporting requirements prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons? In addition to the cost factor on our small businesses, the possibility of U.S. trade secrets being stolen during CWC inspections to me at least seems very high. I have been advised that the U.S. intelligence community has said that the CWC inspections constitute a new tool to add to our intelligence collection tool kit. Putting one and one together, inspections will also constitute a tool in the kit of foreign governments as well. I hope that the American people realize that U.S. expenditures as a member nation of the CWC include a mandatory 25-percent assessment for operating expenses of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. As a member nation, we will pick up a 25-percent assessment for the operating expenses of the organization. This is the new international organization created to administer the CWC. It is my understanding that operating costs are likely to be a minimum of $100 million per year, $25 million of which will come from U.S. taxpayers. Finally, it is my understanding that the CWC requires the United States to begin destruction of our chemical stockpile no later than 2 years after the treaty enters into force. I simply believe that is unreasonable and unattainable. The Department of Defense has publicly stated that the U.S. destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile will continue regardless of whether we are a signatory to such treaty. We have one such arsenal in Pine Bluff, AR. I believe it is unrealistic to expect that the $12.4 billion cost in destroying those chemical weapons will be achievable particularly given the environmental concerns that exist. And I am being contacted daily by those with environmental concerns about the Pine Bluff arsenal. So I believe that the recent debate on Yucca Mountain further illustrates how problematic the fulfillment of our treaty obligations would be. Madam President, I certainly want this body to provide a comprehensive domestic and international plan to reduce the threat of chemical and biological weapons. As I have already stated today, however, the CWC has too many loopholes that will perpetuate chemical weapon activity rather than end it. It is a serious obligation that we have. I believe that this body will make the right decision. For me, the words of Dick Cheney keep echoing: ``Worse than no treaty at all.'' For this Senator, I will be voting ``no'' on I believe a flawed, unfixable treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I proudly stand here today as a cosponsor of S. 495, Senator Jon Kyl's Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997. First and foremost, I want to thank the good Senator from Arizona for his commitment and hard work regarding chemical and biological weapon threats. This legislation certainly provides a comprehensive domestic and international plan to reduce the threat of chemical and biological weapon use. It sets forth practical, realistic, and achievable nonproliferation measures to combat the very real dangers posed by these weapons. Today the U.S. Senate will vote on the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act. Mr. President, for the first time in U.S. history, we will have legislation that provides the needed criminal and civil penalties against those who produce, stockpile, and transfer chemical weapons in the United States. Mr. President, as this body begins debate on the chemical weapons issue, I wholeheartedly believe that S. 495 will not only reinforce our strong commitment to eliminating chemical and biological weapons, but more importantly this legislation will provide our domestic law enforcement authorities the needed legal basis to enforce prohibitions on chemical weapons activities within the United States. I have heard the arguments against S. 495, including that it amounts to the ``U.S. go at it alone,'' approach. However, Mr. President, this bill sets forth a strong moral example for other nations to follow and in doing so underscores our commitment to global nonproliferation efforts. Furthermore, through the Australia Group, the United States and its principal international partners have worked together to prevent the transfer of dual-use chemicals and chemical weapon-related equipment. The Australia Group must remain a cornerstone of our international nonproliferation effort and Mr. President, the passage of this legislation accomplishes this goal. Mr. President, let me emphasize the strong points of this bill: It requires U.S. sanctions against any country that uses chemical and/or biological weapons against another country. In effect a range of sanctions can be imposed: arms sales, trade restrictions, foreign assistance, etc.; It outlaws the entire range of chemical and biological weapons activities within the United States. This bill mandates a $100,000 penalty for civil violations and provides the death penalty where chemical and/or biological weapons use leads to the loss of life; It establishes criteria for continued United States aid to Russia for chemical and biological weapons dismantlement and destruction; Most importantly, the assistance for dismantling Russia's chemical weapons stockpiles is contingent upon Russia's commitment to abide by already existing bilateral and multilateral agreements on chemical and biological weapons; and This legislation requires calling an international conference to strengthen the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use of biological and chemical weapons. The Geneva Protocol has been violated on numerous occasions with little or no response from the states observing its prohibitions. Section 205 of this legislation would call for the creation of an international body whose purpose would be to ensure that the participating states will penalize any state violating the Geneva Protocol. Mr. President, we must, to the best of our ability, avoid the horrible events of the 1980's, when the international community witnessed the horrors of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against its own people. However, we took no action despite the clear and compelling evidence that this atrocity had taken place. To answer this threat, Senator Kyl's legislation directs the Secretary of State to convene an international negotiating forum for the purpose of concluding an international agreement on the enforcement of the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of poison gas in war. Mr. President, one of the most important provisions of S. 495 is that it strengthens U.S. biological and chemical defense programs. The bill recommends three steps to improve the readiness of U.S. military forces in the area of biological and chemical defense. First, it would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that U.S. military forces are prepared to conduct operations in a contaminated environment, particularly in the areas of operating ports and air fields. Second, it would seek improved allied support for biological and chemical defense to sustain operations in a contaminated environment. Third, it would require that the U.S. Army Chemical School remain under the oversight of a general officer. Mr. President, as we begin the debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention and whether to ratify or not, I believe that this legislation, S. 495, is significant because it establishes substantive and workable national policies for confronting the chemical weapons threat. The American people, with justification, will ask their leaders how and where they stand on the issue of chemical weapons. Mr. President, the passage of S. 495 will send a clear and unmistakable message to the American people that this Congress will do everything in its power to rid our world of all chemical and biological weapons. I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.