Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that under the order, after the 10 minutes of morning business, the Senate will then stand in recess without any intervening unanimous consent requests or motions?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator have that to propound now?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate raises very, very serious issues that I think all of us have some strong feelings about, hopefully on the same side of the issue. I can't imagine there is a Member of this body who would support religious repression, forced sterilization, forced abortion, or the other activities which too often occur in this world, including in China. It is because this amendment raises such serious issues that it seems to me there are going to be many people who, understandably, are going to want to pursue what those issues are and to see whether we should not, indeed, address those activities, not just for China but for wherever they occur. One of the questions which this amendment raises is religious repression--intolerable, anywhere. Intolerable, whether it occurs in China or in Saudi Arabia or any other country. This amendment is aimed exclusively at China. The issues that it raises are incredibly serious; the activities that are described are incredibly reprehensible and deplorable, wherever they occur. The question is whether or not this country should adopt a policy of denying visas and, if so, whether or not it is a policy which is manageable; can we determine which of the hundred of thousands of visa applicants--for instance, which were issued to Chinese nationals-- probably millions in other countries--can be investigated. If so, by whom and under what circumstances? Is it a practical policy? On the Armed Services Committee, we have not held hearings on this. This is not something that comes within our jurisdiction. This is a Foreign Relations Committee issue, which they, hopefully, have either looked at or will look at. This has to do with the State Department and Justice Department, not the Defense Department. So we are sitting here with a defense bill, being presented with a very serious issue that should be dealt with, I believe, generically, wherever the activity occurs, and it should be aimed at any country-- not just at one, but all countries where these activities occur--and it should be a policy that can be implemented. Does this amendment meet that test? I think there are people who feel that, no, it doesn't. But it raises such serious issues that we ought to find a way to deal with these issues. I am one of those people. I am second to none in terms of my opposition to religious repression. My family has felt enough of that through our generation. I am second to none in terms of what I believe is the reprehensible character of a forced abortion or a sterilization policy. We don't have to take second seats to each other in terms of our abhorrence of those kinds of activities. But I would hope that, as a body that tries to deliberate on a policy and apply it wherever it should be applied, we would take enough time to ask ourselves if forced abortion is reprehensible, and do we want anybody who perpetrates it to have a visa. If so, apply it uniformly; if not, apply it uniformly. We have an amendment which says the top leaders of the country--the policymakers--are exempt from the denial of a visa. The Cabinet officers in China, presumably, who make policy, can get visas; but any 200,000 nationals of China are supposed to be investigated to see whether or not they implemented a reprehensible policy. You let the Cabinet officers off the hook, but the 200,000 nationals beneath the Cabinet officers are the ones whose visa applications presumably are supposed to be investigated. Why are we letting the policymakers off the hook? Why do they get visas to come in here, but people who may or may not have been implementing the policy are the ones whose visa applications will be investigated? We have a 1,500-page book, ``State Department Analysis of Human Rights Violations Around the World.'' It is a very useful book. Just open to a page just about anyplace--on page 1,561 it relates to Saudi Arabia: ``The Government does not permit public non-Moslem religious activities. Non-Moslem worshipers risk arrest, lashing and deportation for engaging in religious activities that attract official attention.'' Now, the policy of denying visas may or may not be workable, but we surely ought to apply it uniformly where the activity is as reprehensible in one country as it is in another. But the amendment before us doesn't do that. It singles out a single country; it singles out 10 pages of those 1,500 pages and says that this is where we are going to apply the visa denial policy. Is that what we want to do as a Senate? Should we take the time to decide whether or not we want to do it that way? I think we ought to. Is a policy of religious persecution or forced abortion as reprehensible if it occurs there, as well as if it occurs elsewhere? I think it is. So what we have before us is a very, very sincere effort to address a real human rights problem--more than one--pages and pages of human rights problems in China. I said 10, but I wasn't sure; it could be 50 for all I know. These are huge human rights violations in China--huge. The Senator from Arkansas is correct in pointing them out, in my book. I give him credit for pointing them out. But there are issues that are raised, which must be addressed by a Senate that is serious about addressing these issues uniformly, generically, wherever they exist. In my book, that is what we should try to find a way to do. Can we do this on a defense authorization bill? I do not believe that we are going to be able to resolve these issues here. Should we acknowledge that the issues are indeed real ones? I think we should find a way to do that. So there is going to be some real reluctance, in my judgment--honest reluctance, may I say to my friend from Arkansas--to table an amendment from those who nonetheless have questions as to whether or not this amendment should apply to people who engage in activities wherever they engage in them, not just in China, and should apply to top level officials, not just to the 200,000 nationals beneath them who applied for visas. So however people vote on the motion--and I hope everybody is troubled by the activity equally and with the same commitment and passion as our friend from Arkansas--I believe that will reflect, in their judgment, a decision as to whether or not the issue is an important issue, as I believe and I think all of us believe it is, but also how do we deal with it on a defense authorization bill. That is an honest dilemma that people feel. So the suggestion that people who will vote against tabling may disagree with the Senator from Arkansas, I don't believe is a fair accusation about many of us who will vote against tabling. Many of us who will vote against tabling have a lot of issues that we feel should be resolved relative to the issue that has been raised by the Senator from Arkansas--honest, legitimate improvements that could be made or considerations that could be made on the points he has raised, including the few that I have just enumerated here. Do we want to apply this to top officials? If so, why are they given exemption? Do we want to apply it wherever the activities occur, not just in China? If so, why is this limited to China? Is this a workable process when you have millions of visa applications--200,000 from China alone? We don't know on the Armed Services Committee. We have surely not had an opportunity to have a hearing into this subject, which I think would have been highly useful prior to this amendment coming to the floor. Mr. President, there will be an effort, I know, to table this, or a motion that Senator Warner hopes to make around 10:15. I know there is at least one other speaker who wants to be heard. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared by this side.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I have an inquiry of the Chair. Then there are no yeas and nays requested on either the first- or second-degree amendments at this time?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is there a need for the yeas and nays on the first-degree Feinstein amendment? I ask whether the leader would have any objection, if there is no need for it, to vitiating the yeas and nays on the underlying Feinstein first-degree amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. So the question is, if there is a need for the yeas and nays, we would leave it. If there is no need for a rollcall vote on that, we would need to vitiate, as I understand it, the yeas and nays on the first-degree Feinstein amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I don't know the length. I want to make inquiry on the yeas and nays issue. Is it not correct that the yeas and nays were ordered on the Feinstein first-degree amendment?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to withhold that, if he would, for another few minutes, to see if we can work out a unanimous-consent agreement, pursuant to which he would be able to proceed. Otherwise, I think we would have to object on this side, and perhaps on your side, without that unanimous-consent agreement. We are trying, however, very hard to work out a unanimous- consent agreement to permit the Senator to proceed. So I ask the Senator to withhold just for a few more minutes to see if we can do that. In the absence of that, I would have to object.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2742 (Purpose: To prohibit members of the Armed Forces from entering into correctional facilities to present decorations to persons who commit certain crimes before being presented such decorations)

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Ford, Bond, Lott and Grassley, I offer an amendment which would authorize the expansion of counterdrug activities currently performed by the National Guard.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Virginia will yield.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder whether or not it is inconvenient to anyone if we put in a brief quorum call for 5 minutes to allow me to do something that I need to attend to, if that would not inconvenience any other Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, of course I will not object. I understand that the second unanimous consent agreement would read that upon the disposition of this series of cleared amendments, the amendments set aside once again become the pending business. Is that the Chair's understanding?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared, Mr. President. We support the amendment.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden, I offer an amendment that would increase hazardous duty incentive pay for certain enlisted personnel.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Objection.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might just have the floor for a few moments to comment on the remarks of our friend from Arkansas. It won't take me more than 2 or 3 minutes, if he can yield the floor for that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 5 minutes at this time and then the floor return to the Senator from West Virginia.