Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, tomorrow, in Chicago, the American Bar Association's litigation section will present its 1995 International Human Rights Award to Martin C.M. Lee, the chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong. The award is a high honor which Mr. Lee has earned for his efforts to win full democracy for the people of Hong Kong and to safeguard the rule of law as the territory nears its June 30, 1997, reversion to the People's Republic of China. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to Martin Lee and submit for the record an article by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh which appeared on July 30, 1995, in the Washington Post. The article is called, ``A Blow to Hong Kong's Future.'' The blow Dick Thornburgh refers to is the recent agreement by Great Britain and the People's Republic of China to set up a new high court for Hong Kong according to terms that violate the 1984 Joint Declaration. The terms, which include restrictions on jurisdiction and limits on foreign common law judges, have dealt a powerful blow to the colony's long tradition of judicial independence. Dick Thornburgh's article reports that the Hong Kong Government of Chris Patten has criticized the American Bar Association for bestowing its award on Mr. Lee. As the article says, the Hong Kong Government is disturbed that ``Lee, one of several leading lights in the democratic community, has been calling the court deal what it is: A sellout.'' China has made the future of Hong Kong's democrats painfully clear by announcing its intention to abolish Hong Kong's Legislative Council [Legco], abrogate the bill of rights ordinance, and destroy the rule of law. Over the next 2 years, we Americans must stand with Martin Lee and his fellow democrats as they stand up for the future, and autonomy they were promised. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, July 30, 1995] A Blow to Hong Kong's Future (By Dick Thornburgh) What government recently denounced an organization that was planning to bestow an international human rights award on its most prominent democrat? No, not Burma. Not Nigeria. It was the British government of Hong Kong, which, although not yet in its final days, is conducting a fire sale of the protections that the rule of law built up over a century. This month the American Bar Association's litigation section announced it would award Martin Lee, chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, its 1995 International Human Rights Award at its meeting in Chicago on August 8. A top Hong Kong government official promptly denounced the ABA, and continued the Hong Kong government's mounting attacks on Lee himself. The Hong Kong government of Chris Patten has reason to be alarmed by the ABA award. It will bring Martin Lee and his criticisms of Great Britain's double-cross of Hong Kong to the attention not only of the ABA's approximately 350,000 members but to all Americans distressed by China's arrest of American activist Harry Wu, and the PRC's long record of human rights abuses. Less than two years from now, Hong Kong will be transferred to the PRC under the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Under that 1984 agreement, both Great Britain and China pledged Hong Kong would thrive under an arrangement Deng Xiaoping called ``one country, two systems.'' Since then, however, China has reneged on virtually every one of its commitments, pledging to abolish the Legislative Council (Legco) and abrogate the bill of rights ordinance, and seeking to destroy the rule of law. The British Hong Kong government has stood by and done nothing. In early June, the Hong Kong government signaled its final retreat. British and PRC negotiators cut a deal on the Court of Final Appeal, the new court needed to replace London's Privy Council as Hong Kong's high court. The deal violates the Joint Declaration in a number of respects, including restricting the number of foreign common law judges on the bench. Such judges have contributed to Hong Kong's highly regarded judiciary, and they will be crucial to the court's ability to resist PRC interference. The deal also injects the future Beijing-appointed chief executive into the judicial selection process, another break with tradition. Most important, the British capitulated to Beijing on the court's jurisdiction. The court may not rule on acts of state ``such as'' defense and foreign affairs. These two words, to be interpreted by a party organ in Beijing, could prevent the court from hearing virtually anything Beijing chooses, including challenges to state power. Finally, British and the PRC agreed not to set up the court until July 1, 1997, despite previous agreement to get it up and running much earlier. British appointees and pro-China members approved legislation establishing the court as proposed on July 26. So why is the Hong Kong government so worked up over the award to Lee? Lee, one of several leading lights in Hong Kong's democratic community, has been calling the court deal what is a sellout. After building up a successful law practice and chairing the Hong Kong Bar Association, he entered politics in 1985, becoming the legal community's first representative in Legco through the government's byzantine ``functional constituencies'' system. These Legco members are chosen by tiny franchises representing business and professional groups such as real estate developers and bankers. In Hong Kong's first-ever democratic elections in 1991, Lee won the most votes of any candidate, while pro-democracy candidates overall took 17 of 18 democratically selected seats. Lee, his Democratic Party and independent democrats are expected to outpoll pro-China candidates for the 20 seats open in elections this Sept. 17, the last elections before the PRC takeover. (The increase in democratic seats from 18 to 20 was the centerpiece of Patten's highly touted 1994 reform package.) China has pledged to abolish Legco, and recently announced that it will set up a parallel, appointed legislature well before 1997. Beijing already had its sights on Lee--having ejected him from a committee to draft Hong Kong's so-called ``mini- constitution'' for supporting the demonstrators at Tianamen Square. Lee is a thorn in Governor Patten's side. And he will be a thorn in China's side. Unless something changes, we can all look forward to the time, a few years on, when Beijing in turn denounces an organization for bestowing a human rights award on Martin Lee.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, why are we here today considering the elimination of the Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]? It is not that they have worked themselves out of a job. Indeed, all indications suggest that drug usage and availability have reversed their course and are now on the rise. Frankly, the performance of this office--or rather lack thereof--has led us to this point. Their silence on the scourge of drugs, coupled with their diminished support of interdiction activities, has sent a clear message to the drug cartels and to the American people. That message is that this administration is apathetic with respect to the issue of drug trafficking and drug use. Under this administration, every passing year has witnessed additional cuts in overall interdiction funding. According to numbers provided by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, interdiction funding has been cut by approximately $700 million since 1991. This amounts to more than a 25-percent reduction. Moreover, the administration's source country strategy has diverted scarce assets and diminished our capabilities in transit and border interdiction activities. While the strategy of source country interdiction is conceptually sound, the reality is that it leaves us susceptible to the decisions of sovereign nations on whether or not to cooperate with the United States. In a letter sent to President Clinton in January of this year I, along with Senators Dole and Hatch, expressed our concern over this source country emphasis at the expense of our transit and border interdiction capabilities. Shortly thereafter the President delivered to the Congress his budget which once again contained less funding for drug interdiction activities. It appears the President missed the message. I am unconvinced that the Office of National Drug Control Strategy is doing all it can to support the agencies involved in interdiction activities. Based on the statistics I've seen and on the information I've acquired from various law enforcement officials, I would suggest ONDCP has not done enough. Not enough in budgetary support and not enough in verbal advocacy. Reliable groups who gather drug-related data have independently verified that drug usage is rising. Indeed, a variety of variables that these groups analyze indicate the United States is failing in its interdiction efforts. For instance, cocaine and heroin emergency room admissions have been rising since 1992--Drug Abuse Warning Network [DAWN]. Drug usage among high school students, 8th to 12th grade, has also been rising over this same period--monitoring the future study. Finally, the data also shows that as interdiction funding has dropped, so to has the price of cocaine. Cocaine is now more affordable that it has been at any time over the last 6 years--DAWN. Last year, the Commandant of the Coast Guard was tasked with coordinating and representing all law enforcement agencies involved in drug interdiction to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Commandant informed Lee Brown, Director of ONDCP, of the various agencies' dissatisfaction over their interdiction budgets. It would appear that the concerns of the people in the field and the mission they are asked to perform are just not a priority for this administration. While created with the laudable goal of coordinating the many agencies involved throughout the Government in fighting the scourge of drugs through interdiction, education, and treatment, ONDCP has fallen short of its responsibilities--especially in the interdiction effort. The elimination of this office should not be viewed as a signal that the Congress has given up on drug interdiction, indeed just the opposite is the case. The elimination of this office should, in no uncertain terms, signal the administration that not enough is being done and that their support of interdiction activities has been inadequate. I believe President Clinton would send a strong signal to the American people by increasing his support of interdiction activities. amendment no. 2245, as modified Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2245) as modified, for Mr. Hatch, for himself and Mr. Biden. amendment no. 2246 Mr. SHELBY offered an amendment (No. 2246) for Mr. Coverdell. On page 2, line 21, strike ``$105,929,000'' and insert ``$110,929,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be transferred to States covered by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, to be expended by such States for costs associated with the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, with such funds disbursed to such States on the basis of the number of registered voters in each State on July 1, 1995, in relation to the number of registered voters in all States on such date'': Provided that no further funds in addition to the $5,000,000 so transferred, may be transferred by the Secretary to the States for costs associated with the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 during Fiscal Year 1996. On page 46, line 12, strike ``$2,329,000,000'' and insert ``$2,324,000,000''. Amendment No. 2247 Mr. SHELBY (for Mr. Brown, for himself and Mr. Kerrey) offered an amendment (No. 2247) as follows: (Purpose: To limit the amount of leave that Senior Executive Service employees may accumulate to 60 days) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: Sec. . (a) Section 6304(f) of title 5, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``described in paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``for an individual described subparagraphs (B) through (E) of paragraph (1)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(3) For purposes of applying any limitation on accumulation under this section with respect to any annual leave for an individual described in paragraph (1)(A)-- ``(A) `30 days' in subsection (a) shall be deemed to read `60 days'; and ``(B) `45 days' in subsection (b) shall be deemed to read `60 days'.''. (b)(1) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect January 1, 1996. (2) Any individual serving in a position in the Senior Executive Service on December 31, 1995 may retain any annual leave accrued as of that date until the leave is used by that individual.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, earlier today, in a statement made by President Clinton, he said he was planning to veto the legislative appropriations bill, and I find that, frankly, very disappointing. There have been many press reports suggesting the Clinton White House is in a constant campaign mode. His decision to veto the bill is clearly the decision of candidate Clinton, not President Clinton. Candidate Clinton is playing games. He is misleading the American people. This year the Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, cut its own spending by nearly 9 percent. A cut of this magnitude has not occurred in 40 years, I might say, the last time the Republicans controlled the Congress. The legislative branch bill has not been vetoed since 1920. Let me outline a couple of the specifics about what we have done: An overall reduction of $206 million; reduction of Senate committee budgets by 15 percent; elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment; a 2-year, 25-percent reduction in the budget of the General Accounting Office. This is part of what the President had to say today: [The Congress] is way behind schedule on virtually every budget bill . . . but one bill, wouldn't you know, is right on schedule--the bill that funds the Congress, its staff, and its operations. I don't think Congress should take care of its own business before it takes care of the people's business. If you listen to that statement, there is an implication there that they have increased spending in the legislative branch. This is one of the most misleading statements that I have heard. The President likes to talk about common ground and solving the fiscal crisis responsibly, but when it comes to spending cuts he is totally absent. We are leading by example. Candidate Clinton is leading by rhetoric. It is disappointing and bodes poorly for finding the common ground he claims to embrace. We hear a lot of talk about a train wreck coming in October. President Clinton likes to talk about avoiding it. But when it comes time for demonstrating good faith, President Clinton takes a walk and candidate Clinton comes into play. It may make good politics, but President Clinton is not being served well by candidate Clinton, and neither are the American people. The American people elected us to cut spending. We are doing it, and Bill Clinton is standing in the way. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have decided to join my colleagues in support of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. I do so with some mixed feelings. With Senator Lieberman, I was an author of the concept of PLO compliance and of the legislation that makes that concept the law of the United States. The concept of PLO compliance is at the heart of the entire peace process. We often say that the peace process strikes a delicate balance between strict demands on the PLO and understanding the difficulties they face in making peace with Israel. Frankly, there are times when it is difficult to accept that balance. What difficulties can there be to renouncing terror, and to abandoning vows to destroy Israel? Here I would like to draw attention to what this legislation contains, because there must be no mistake: The Congress is disturbed by the PLO's record since its decision to make peace with Israel. I would like, here, to thank my colleagues, Senators Helms and Pell, who worked extremely hard together to draft this legislation. This legislation moves us closer to a cut-off of aid, which is the inescapable result of the PLO's failure to fulfill its promises. This legislation is very critical of the PLO. It incorporates all the promises of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement dealing with prevention of terrorism, abstention and prevention of incitement and hostile propaganda, the operation of armed forces other than the Palestinian Authority, weapons offenses, extradition of criminal suspects and other law enforcement and rule-of-law issues. This legislation also addresses the issue of accountability. The President must certify that aid is being used for the purposes Congress intends. This is a standard that cannot be evaded. We will be watching the PLO closely. We are helping the Palestinian Authority financially because it helps Israel and it helps ordinary Palestinians who desperately need health care, education, and other assistance. We are not providing aid to be wasted or siphoned away by Palestinian Authority officials, or to help them, in any way, evade their commitments. This legislation also lets the administration know that its approach to PLO compliance needs improvement, and expressly requires congressional notification of the President's determinations regarding compliance. Here I would note that to the extent that the State Department accepts and minimizes PLO violations, the Department permits the PLO to imagine that its commitments may be obviated. We do not believe that this is the administration's intent. However, we are equally sure that it is the inevitable outcome of the failure of U.S. policy to clearly address PLO compliance. The current situation cannot go on indefinitely. The Palestinian Authority must make a choice. Either it recognizes that its commitments to Israel form the basis of a permanent peace, or it continues the charade of compliance until the peace process is irreparably damaged. The sooner the Palestinian Authority realizes that these commitments are inescapable and will not be overlooked by the international community, the sooner the peace process will become simply peace.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, while I have indicated that I am prepared to accept the amendment, I think it is fair to say that there are questions with respect to the concept as it relates to members of the Senate Press Gallery only, as I understand it.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet on Thursday, July 20, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SR-418, to conduct a hearing on international population assistance programs and S. 1029, the International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, July 20, at 9 a.m., on reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 2 p.m.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Organ Transplant Act Reauthorization, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 8:30 a.m. in SD226.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 4 p.m.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, July 20, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on Medicare.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, July 20, 1995, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an executive session and markup.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on Friday the Senate begin consideration of H.R. 1817, the Military Construction Appropriations bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman. At least, I think I want to thank the chairman for his remarks. I appreciate that and appreciate his assistance as we have begun this process. I also want to thank Keith Kennedy and Larry Harris for the work they have done to prepare us and the bill and to assist as we move forward. And again, to Senator Murray, it has been a pleasure working with the Senator through conference and completing the bill.

Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed immediately to vote on the passage of the bill with no other intervening action or debate.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Specter amendment and the following five amendments, which I have sent to the desk on behalf of Senators Dole, Simon, Lieberman, Bingaman, and myself be considered agreed to, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc. So the amendment (No. 1806) was agreed to. So the amendments (No. 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831 and 1832) were agreed to, as follows: amendment no. 1828 (Purpose: To retain the Capitol Guide Service and Special Services Office) On page 27 of the bill, strike all between lines 1-25, and insert the following: Capitol Guide Service For salaries and expenses of the Capitol Guide Service, $1,628,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate: Provided, That none of these funds shall be used to employ more than thirty-three individuals: Provided further, That the Capitol Guide Board is authorized, during emergencies, to employ not more than two additional individuals for not more than one hundred twenty days each, and not more than ten additional individuals for not more than six months each, for the Capitol Guide Service. Special Services Office For salaries and expenses of the Special Services Office, $363,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

Mr. MACK. It is my understanding that there has been a request for a recorded vote. So I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have a consent agreement that has been approved on both sides of the aisle on a matter other than this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. No. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. MACK. It is my understanding that there are no further votes necessary on the legislative appropriations bill, that if we were to-- --

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have a consent agreement that has been approved on both sides of the aisle on a matter other than this bill. I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the legislative appropriations bill, the Senate turn to the consideration of H.R. 1944 and it be considered under the following agreement: One amendment in order to be offered by Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun regarding Education Funding/Job Training and LIHEAP, on which there be a division, and each of the two divisions be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided in the usual form with all time being used tonight except for 30 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; and that at 10:20 a.m. the managers be recognized to utilize 10 minutes for debate to be followed by Senator Wellstone to be recognize for his 30 minutes of debate, to be followed by a vote on a motion to table the first Wellstone division, and that following that vote, the majority leader be recognized to place the bill on the Calendar, and if that action is not exercised, the Senate then proceed immediately to a vote on a motion to table the second Wellstone division and that following that vote the majority leader be recognized to exercise the same right with respect to placing the bill on the Calendar, and if that action is not utilized the Senate proceed immediately to a vote on passage of H.R. 1944.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I would like for the Record to indicate that my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, joins me in the tabling motion. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I move to table the Hollings amendment.