Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, my purpose in requesting an hour was to share with my freshman colleagues an opportunity to talk some about change, an opportunity to talk about the real chance we have to bring about change here in the next 3 weeks. So I intend to take 10 minutes and share the rest, then, with other members of the freshman and sophomore class. I wanted to talk just a little bit about change. I wanted to talk a little bit about the development of policy. I must confess, I am concerned we are seeking increasingly to formulate public policy in this country based on something other than facts, to formulate public policy based on what seems to be a marketing technique to oppose change. I want to talk about that just a little bit. My friend from North Dakota just finished. He just finished talking in some areas I think are not factual, that I think probably do not represent where we are really going with policymaking in Medicare. What we are doing is, those who are opposed to change in Medicare are seeking to use scare tactics to cause people to think Medicare is going out the window, we are not going to do it, when the fact is if we do not make some changes, then we will lose Medicare. Those of us who want Medicare for the elderly, for those of us who want Medicare soon for ourselves and others, know you have to make some changes. The idea we are going to cut and ravage Medicare just is not true. Whether it is Phillips or whoever it is, the fact is that the spending is going to increase. What we are talking about doing is changing a growth pattern that is not maintainable--more than 10 percent--bringing it down to 6.5 percent.

Mr. THOMAS. If the Senator will yield back my time, I will be happy to, because I intend to do that. We are talking here that it is being done to save taxes. That is not true. That is just not true. If there was no budget crisis at all, if there were no tax reductions being talked about, you have to do something with part A of Medicare. Kevin Phillips and others seem to ignore that. The fact is, the money that goes into part A of Medicare is taken from your salary and mine, 2.9 percent, and goes into this fund. And this fund, according to the trustees, three out of six of whom are Cabinet members, they say that by the year 2002 that fund will be paying out more than it is taking in. That is a fact. The fact is, even if you did not have anything to do with the budget, you would have to do something if you want to continue to have Medicare based on that premise of paying for part A from what is withheld from salary and from the employer. That is a fact. So, that is where we are. The people who oppose change do not talk about that. They get into this tax thing, which really, really has nothing to do with it. And, on the contrary, the opposite is they do not have any suggestions. They simply want to complain about the idea that people are saying we need to make some changes there. And our friends stand up and say ``Oh, yes, we need to make changes,'' and then resist every change that is made. So, I think we need to start talking a little more about the facts and get a little off this idea of a marketing rhetoric that is designed, simply, to oppose what it is we are doing. We have a basic difference in philosophy. I understand that. That is perfectly legitimate. That is what elections are about. That is what two parties are about. I happen to think we are better with less government and less taxes, and trying to find a way to reduce the costs of Medicare, not to simply find more money to put in it. Do you want to talk about fraud? The Senator mentioned fraud. Most experts indicate that there is $30 billion of fraud in Medicare now. So I feel very strongly that, if we are going to have public policy that is good public policy for all of us, public policy needs to be made based on some facts and not simply some kind of marketing technique. The other is change. Mr. President, we have a great opportunity now to make change. We have an opportunity in the next several weeks to finish the job the American voters asked us to start last November, to finish the job we said we would do: To have a less intrusive Government, to have a Government that costs less, to have a Government where the programs that are in place have been evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, whether or not the expenditure of taxpayers' money is getting to the people it is designed to assist. For a program such as welfare, the job is evaluating whether it is indeed accomplishing what it set about to do, and that is to help people who need help and then to help those people into a position to help themselves. Is that happening? The answer is no. So, if you would like to have different results, I think it is imperative that you change. It is pretty hopeless to look for something to happen, to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Mr. President, that does not happen. We have a great opportunity in the next several weeks to talk about fundamental change for the first time in 40 years; for the first time in 25 years, to balance the budget. Who would argue with the idea that we need to balance the budget, that it is not morally and fiscally responsible to balance the budget? We hear that--yes, yes, that is a good thing to do. But, when we seek to do it, all we hear is resistance to it. We are going to do that. We are going to save Medicare, and Medicare has to be changed to be saved. We are going to reform welfare. These are the things we are setting about, necessarily, to do. It is tough when you talk about change. It is hard to change the direction of Government. It is increasingly difficult as the Government is in more and more programs, that more and more people are involved in lobbying for those programs, that more and more people are involved in the bureaucracy that supports those programs. So it is difficult to make change. Change is what President Clinton talked about almost 3 years ago when he was elected. Has he brought about change? The biggest change was the largest tax increase we have had in the history of this country. But I think change was the basis for the 1994 elections. I think change is something that almost everybody embraces, but it is difficult to do, and I do understand that. But if we are to have different results, we have to change the way we do things. Mr. President, we have worked now for a number of months. We are down to the critical decision time, when all this work now will result in a decision and we will decide whether we are going to balance the budget. We will decide what kind of country we want to transfer to our kids and their kids, as we go into another century. What happens if we do not? In a few weeks we will be talking about voting on a debt extension to $5 trillion. In just a year or two, unless we change, we will find that all the available tax revenues will be used for entitlements and interest on the debt. If we do not change, we will not have a Medicare Program by the year 2002. So, change is not an option, in my view. Change is exactly what has to be done, and, of course, there are different views of how you do it. But the idea that you use a marketing rhetoric designed to scare people and say change will devastate the programs that the country is committed to carrying out just is not the case. I think we need to continue to say, here are the good things that happen when we balance the budget and ultimately reduce the amount of money we take out of families to pay for Government. We can reduce the growing inflation. We can create more jobs by putting more dollars into the private sector. And we can be more effective in what we do. So we are talking about change. We are talking about public policy based on facts. We disagree, then, as to the remedy. But we ought to start, at least, by recognizing these facts that are there, that are described not by the Members of Congress but by the trustees of Medicare. Mr. President, our time is to be shared among several of our freshman colleagues, so I would like now to yield to my colleague and friend from Georgia. And he then will be followed by another. I yield to the Senator from Georgia. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator has had his time. I really do not yield to him. I would like to go ahead and make my presentation, sir. You have made yours.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the October 13, 1995 oversight hearing which had been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Energy and Natural Resources Committee to examine the role of the Council on Environmental Quality in the decisionmaking and management processes of agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction--Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and the U.S. Forest Service--has been postponed. The hearing now will take place Thursday, October 19, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak in support of S. 143, the bill that is on the floor and will be on the floor later today, the job training bill. Mr. President, I first want to commend Senator Kassebaum for the work she has done on this bill, and the others as well. I am not on that committee, but I am interested in this bill and what it seeks to do. I think it is symptomatic of the changes that need to be made in many of the programs, and it seeks to bring together 150, roughly, programs that have been designed over the years, each with a certain amount of merit, of course, and certainly each now with a constituency, and to bring those together and to seek to make them more efficient. It seems to me, Mr. President, that one of the exciting things about this year in this Congress has been that there has been, for the first time in very many years, an opportunity to look at programs, to evaluate programs, to examine their purpose and then to see if indeed they are carrying out that purpose to see if there are better ways to do it and, perhaps as important as anything, to see if there is a way to shift those programs with more emphasis on the States and local government. I come from a small State; I come from Wyoming. When I am in Washington, I live in Fairfax County, and there are twice as many people in Fairfax County as there are in the State of Wyoming. So we have a little different and unique need there for the kinds of programs. We still have a need for the programs, whether it be welfare or job training, but we need to have it tailored in a way that, I suspect, is quite different from that of Pittsburgh or New York City, and that is what this program is all about. I think too often--and I am concerned about this, Mr. President--as we seek to make change--and I think voters want to make change; they said they want to make change in November 1994. Yet, of course, there are people who legitimately do not want to change and want to stay with the status quo. It is much easier to oppose change than it is to bring it about. So we find often those who are, for whatever the reason, opposed to change, saying, well, that is going to gut the program, that is going to do away with the program, and that is going to eliminate the help for the people who have been the beneficiaries of the program. And that is not true. That is not true in this program, it is not true in health care, it is not true in Medicare, and it is not true in welfare. On the contrary, these programs are designed to bring to those beneficiaries a more efficient program to specifically deal with the needs where those folks live. It gets us away from that idea that one size fits all, away from the idea that Washington knows best. Instead, it moves the programs where the decisions can be made by local people who respond to local needs. So we have, in this case, lots of money-- $20 billion--going in these 150 programs, and this is an effort to bring them together and to block grant many of them to the States so that the States can say, in effect, here is where we need that education money. We do need change, Mr. President. There undoubtedly has been a strong feeling that the things that the Government is doing are not succeeding. We have more poverty now than we had 40 years ago. So it is hard to say that the programs that are designed to alleviate poverty have been workable. It is not a matter of not having spent enough money, in my judgment, but rather not spending it as efficiently as we can. I think there is an adage that we need to adhere to, and that is that you simply cannot expect things to continue by doing the same thing. You cannot expect different results by doing the same thing, which is basically what we have done. So, Mr. President, I rise in strong support. I think we have a great opportunity to make some changes. This is a testing time. Probably the greatest test of representative government, when voters say, look, we are not happy with the way things are, we think we need to change them, the greatest test is to see whether that Government will indeed be responsive to that request for change. I am first to say how difficult it is. And in each year it gets increasingly difficult. As we have more programs and we have more money and we have more people involved in these programs, we have more people involved in bureaucracies, more people involved in lobbying, there is a great resistance to change. I think we have, for the first time in many years, the greatest opportunity to bring about that change. We need to reduce bureaucracy. We need to increase the private sector involvement. We need, perhaps most of all, to increase the accountability, to measure productivity in these programs, and we can do this. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to move forward with this education bill, this training to work, S. 143. I urge that we pass it. I urge that we shift many of these funds and responsibilities to local government, to State government, so that they can, indeed, be oriented to the problems that we seek to fix.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to examine the role of the Council on Environmental Quality in the decisionmaking and management processes of agencies under the committee's jurisdiction--Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, and the U.S. Forest Service. The hearing will take place Friday, October 13, 1995, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the leader time has been reserved. The Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Under a previous consent agreement, at 11 o'clock today the Senate will resume debate on the Bumpers space station amendment with a vote to occur on or in relation to that amendment at approximately 2:15 p.m. today. As a reminder to all Senators, the Senate will recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 today for the weekly policy conference meetings. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, last Friday I had the opportunity to speak before the Washington chapter of the Asia Society on the subject of U.S.-Sino relations. I would like to share that speech with my colleagues, and ask unanimous consent that the text be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes, and further, that the Senator from North Dakota be allowed 5 minutes as in morning business for debate only.

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1268 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health Development Act, an act that I have worked on for some time, to help rural communities design a delivery system that fits their unique health care needs. It has been a project, in fact, that I have worked on since the day I arrived in the House, more than 5 years ago. This issue and these items continue to be a top priority for me here in the Senate. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Jeffords, Simpson, Burns and Frist, have joined me in this effort. They, too, have worked feverishly on behalf of the rural communities in their States. Rural health care, Mr. President, as you know from your State, is at a crossroads. My bill provides for an infrastructure needed to create a system of quality health care for rural families. There are a number of problems that are unique to rural areas--the lack of physicians, nurses, health care extenders, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. We are troubled by the closure of small hospitals where the utilization has been relatively low, and leaves a community without some kind of emergency medical service. Inadequate and unequal Medicare reimbursement is a problem today. So we have what we think is a solution. It helps communities develop their own health care delivery system. It assists in recruiting and retaining physicians. It improves educational opportunities for nurses, physicians, physician extenders, and other kinds of health professionals. It allows hospitals to downsize without losing their emergency room capacity. In short, it is a long-term solution tailored to the needs of rural areas. Specifically, it provides technical assistance. Small grant funds are provided to help communities to design their own network, not one designed by outside consultants who are only familiar with the characteristics of larger places. Second, these funds can be used for two purposes--to build telemedicine systems to assist rural areas, and coordinate arrangements between primary care clinics, emergency medical centers, and tertiary care facilities. Finally, the result to rural individuals, families and employers is the ability to take advantage of cost savings that occur elsewhere, which has not been able to occur in rural America. We equalize the Medicare reimbursement rates. Rural counties receive significantly less reimbursement from [[Page S 14134]] Medicare managed care programs. For example, Fall River County in South Dakota, receives $177 per month, per beneficiary versus $678 for Bronx County in New York--a 367 percent difference. My bill reduces this variation and reimburses rural providers relative to their metropolitan counterparts. The result, of course, is that Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas will have the opportunity to participate in managed care plans. Third, it improves the educational opportunities for nurses. Nurses are a critical component to rural health care. My bill guarantees that 20 percent of all scholarships offered through the National Health Service Corps go to nurses in rural areas. Since 1972, over 70 health care providers have served in Wyoming through the services of the National Health Service Corps Program. So we put greater emphasis there. Regarding recruiting and retaining physicians, Medicare currently provides a 10 percent bonus in rural areas. Ten percent is not much of an incentive. So it is increased to 20. To compensate for the increase, the bonus is restricted to primary care physicians in rural areas. In addition, the bill guarantees 24-hour emergency care. Medicare currently restricts States from establishing limited-service hospitals. As a result, many facilities either have to operate as full-service hospitals, with very low utilization, or close. We are suggesting they be recategorized as a rural emergency access care hospital so that indeed they can be reimbursed from HCFA for these emergency services. In conclusion, Mr. President, as we search for solutions to deliver health care throughout the country, the Rural Development Health Care Act is one proposal that should be added to the list. Many of the provisions have received a favorable response--so much so that they are likely to be folded into the reconciliation package. More important, the Rural Development Health Care Act provides the answer to rural communities that are looking to keep up with the rapidly changing health care environment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health Development Act, an act that I have worked on for some time, to help rural communities design a delivery system that fits their unique health care needs. It has been a project, in fact, that I have worked on since the day I arrived in the House, more than 5 years ago. This issue and these items continue to be a top priority for me here in the Senate. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Jeffords, Simpson, Burns and Frist, have joined me in this effort. They, too, have worked feverishly on behalf of the rural communities in their States. Rural health care, Mr. President, as you know from your State, is at a crossroads. My bill provides for an infrastructure needed to create a system of quality health care for rural families. There are a number of problems that are unique to rural areas--the lack of physicians, nurses, health care extenders, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. We are troubled by the closure of small hospitals where the utilization has been relatively low, and leaves a community without some kind of emergency medical service. Inadequate and unequal Medicare reimbursement is a problem today. So we have what we think is a solution. It helps communities develop their own health care delivery system. It assists in recruiting and retaining physicians. It improves educational opportunities for nurses, physicians, physician extenders, and other kinds of health professionals. It allows hospitals to downsize without losing their emergency room capacity. In short, it is a long-term solution tailored to the needs of rural areas. Specifically, it provides technical assistance. Small grant funds are provided to help communities to design their own network, not one designed by outside consultants who are only familiar with the characteristics of larger places. Second, these funds can be used for two purposes--to build telemedicine systems to assist rural areas, and coordinate arrangements between primary care clinics, emergency medical centers, and tertiary care facilities. Finally, the result to rural individuals, families and employers is the ability to take advantage of cost savings that occur elsewhere, which has not been able to occur in rural America. We equalize the Medicare reimbursement rates. Rural counties receive significantly less reimbursement from [[Page S 14134]] Medicare managed care programs. For example, Fall River County in South Dakota, receives $177 per month, per beneficiary versus $678 for Bronx County in New York--a 367 percent difference. My bill reduces this variation and reimburses rural providers relative to their metropolitan counterparts. The result, of course, is that Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas will have the opportunity to participate in managed care plans. Third, it improves the educational opportunities for nurses. Nurses are a critical component to rural health care. My bill guarantees that 20 percent of all scholarships offered through the National Health Service Corps go to nurses in rural areas. Since 1972, over 70 health care providers have served in Wyoming through the services of the National Health Service Corps Program. So we put greater emphasis there. Regarding recruiting and retaining physicians, Medicare currently provides a 10 percent bonus in rural areas. Ten percent is not much of an incentive. So it is increased to 20. To compensate for the increase, the bonus is restricted to primary care physicians in rural areas. In addition, the bill guarantees 24-hour emergency care. Medicare currently restricts States from establishing limited-service hospitals. As a result, many facilities either have to operate as full-service hospitals, with very low utilization, or close. We are suggesting they be recategorized as a rural emergency access care hospital so that indeed they can be reimbursed from HCFA for these emergency services. In conclusion, Mr. President, as we search for solutions to deliver health care throughout the country, the Rural Development Health Care Act is one proposal that should be added to the list. Many of the provisions have received a favorable response--so much so that they are likely to be folded into the reconciliation package. More important, the Rural Development Health Care Act provides the answer to rural communities that are looking to keep up with the rapidly changing health care environment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire to H.R. 1868, regarding the extending of economic benefits to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I shall be brief. My associate from Missouri wants to speak, and we want to vote before 7 o'clock. As Senator Smith pointed out, while the Clinton administration has been quick to normalize relations with the Government of Vietnam, it has not been as quick to meet its obligations to the Congress and the American people. For example, section 1034 of Public Law 103-337 requires the Secretary of Defense to provide the Congress with a complete list of missing or unaccounted United States military personnel about whom it is possible that Vietnamese and Laotian officials could produce information or remains. The statute mandated that report to be submitted to us by November 17, 1994. When the DOD requested an extension of the deadline to February 17, 1995, we did not object. We did not object when the DOD supplied us with a [[Page S 13940]] sadly incomplete interim report. But, Madam President, more than 7 months after that date, we still have not received the complete report required by the statute. This was not a request, not a casual invitation to provide information. It is a legal mandate. Second, despite both administration and Vietnam protestations to the contrary, I do not believe the Government of Vietnam has done its fullest to account for the POW/MIA's, especially as regards records of United States servicemen who disappeared in, or were taken across the border into Laos. Finally, in all this controversy surrounding the POW/MIA issue, we seem to have lost sight of the important fact that there is disregard for human rights in that country. I will not go into detail. I put them in the Record some time ago. So I will just conclude by saying, until the President can certify to us that, in his judgment, the Vietnamese are living up to their expectation--that is not too much to ask--and their promises regarding the MIA's and POW's and its international right to commitment, I think it is irresponsible and bad judgment for us to provide funding for them. I urge my colleagues to support the Senator's amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 9:30. At 9:30, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1976, the agricultural appropriations bill, and the pending Bryan amendment. In accordance with the consent arrangement, following 15 minutes of debate there will be a rollcall vote on or in relation to the Bryan amendment. All Senators should therefore be alerted that there will be a rollcall vote at approximately 9:45 this morning. Senators also should be reminded that following the recess for party conferences today, the Senate will resume the welfare bill, with a series of rollcall votes beginning at 2:45, which should complete action on the welfare reform bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise in support of the welfare proposal that will be before us today. We have talked about it a very long time. Obviously, there are different views about how it should be implemented but, most of all, it is the first opportunity we have had in a very long time to make some changes, to make some of the kinds of changes that the American people asked us to make in November and, indeed, have been asking us to make for some time. It is the first opportunity in a long time to make some of the kinds of changes that most of us have known needed to be made for a long time in the welfare program. Most everyone agrees that we need a program in this country to help people who need help and help them back into the workplace. The program as it now exists has not accomplished that. Indeed, the program we now have has not accomplished the basic things we think it should accomplish. The provisions of this welfare proposal will allow us to encourage people back to work, to put in some incentives to go back to work, and to deal very properly with the notion of child care, with extending health benefits to single-parent families so that that parent can work. We have done this in our own Wyoming Legislature. We recognized some time ago that if the option was to take a minimum wage job and lose those benefits, then the better thing to do was stay on welfare. We have to change that. We do have to make some changes if we expect different results, and too often we all talk expansively about change; we want to make change; we are all for change; but when the time comes, we really resist change. We simply cannot expect the results to be different unless we do some changing, and one of the principal, most important changes here is to allow the States to have more flexibility, to allow the States to be the laboratory for developing and testing and creating programs that, indeed, deliver the kinds of programs needed. I urge my fellow Senators to vote in support of this welfare bill today. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in general terms about the bill that is before us, not particularly on the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, but I will be brief and be happy to yield if Senator Cochran comes to the floor. Mr. President, I, of course, have watched with great interest over the last week as we have talked about welfare, and much of it has been in great detail, as it should be. But I rise basically to support the Dole amendment. I rise to urge that we pass this bill. There will be changes. There should be changes. There should be great debates. There are differences of view. But those things can, indeed, be resolved. The point is we have come to the time, the monumental time in which we can reform welfare--almost everyone says welfare needs to be reformed--and yet we go on and on in great detail and, indeed, risk the opportunity of passage of this bill. So I rise to suggest to my colleagues that we need to move forward. We need to consider the amendments. We need to consider the ideas. Mostly, however, we need to be committed to taking this opportunity to passing welfare reform. It is a historic time. It is the first time in most of our memories when we have had an opportunity to really look at what are basically Great Society programs that have not been reviewed, have not been changed in a very long time, have not been questioned as to whether or not they are fulfilling the purpose for which they were devised, have not been measured in terms of their effectiveness, in terms of accomplishing that goal. No one would oppose the idea that we need to help people who need help, but the purpose is to help them back into the workplace, back into the private sector so that they can help themselves. Nobody would argue that making a career of welfare is a great thing to do. No one wants to do that. So we have for the first time an opportunity to make these measurements, and I certainly am encouraged that we are doing it. I have to admit that we are somewhat discouraged in that this is not the first time this year we have entered into one of great debates when we have had people stand up on both sides of the aisle and say we certainly want a welfare bill, we want a nonpartisan bill, we want to move it, and then go into a very partisan posture of seeing that it does not move, of having 150 amendments that have to be treated. So I hope, Mr. President, that we are prepared to complete this task and complete it in a responsible time, to complete welfare reform for the first time in many years. We have to deal, of course, with the perverse incentives that are there, the incentives that encourage people to be locked into welfare, that encourage the idea of additional children while on welfare, that encourage the idea of one-parent families. These are things that no one agrees with, but these are in fact at least partially the results of things that we have been doing. In short, the system conflicts with the basic principles of this country in terms of equality and opportunity, and that is what we are seeking to do. There is a need for a new approach. I have dealt with this, as most of us [[Page S 13154]] have, for a good long time, starting in the Wyoming Legislature when we had the same kinds of debates. But I am persuaded that this is one of those things--and there are many of them--in which the needs in Wyoming are quite different than the needs in New York or New Jersey or indeed in California, so that we do need to allow the States to be the laboratories in which we devise the best delivery plans we can. That is partly what this is all about. The States know the kinds of programs. We have developed programs in Wyoming, nonpartisan programs, by the way, that are designed to bring people back into the workplace, and to a large extent they are working. Workfare programs in Wyoming, known as Wyoming opportunity acts, were started by a Democratic Governor several years ago. They are very limited. They are only in two or three counties out of 23, and we have had difficulty getting waivers from the Federal Government to do those things. But they are a move in the right direction, and that is the kind of flexibility we do need. Obviously, the Federal Government will have a role, setting a framework for the States, requiring work, encouraging child care, stressing personal responsibility, cracking down on fraud, but we need to give the States the flexibility to devise the plan that works there. I urge that we move forward. Many of the things that are talked about as being partisan are really the great debates. There are differences of view. There is a substantial difference between the general philosophy of our friends on the other side of the aisle and this side of the aisle. We have to resolve those. That is what it is all about. That is why we take votes. And that is why we have a process. I guess I am urging more than anything, however, that we collectively commit ourselves to completing this task, to accomplishing the reform of welfare. The President in his initial entry into national public life said we are going to change welfare as we know it. Unfortunately, there has not been much activity from the White House--very little activity from the White House. This week's radio program however says let us keep politics out of the welfare bill. I am for that. Let us identify those issues that we need to talk about. There are differences. We can resolve them. We need to do that. Unfortunately, the White House says, let us keep politics out of it; and then turns loose the Press Secretary and many others in the administration to come in in various areas. So, Mr. President, I just believe strongly that the 1994 election and the continuing polling indicates a particular message; that is, Americans want action and they want something changed. They want reform. The American people do not want us to debate this in great detail and then leave it, walk away from it without some resolution. I think they indicated we are sincere and serious about breaking the cycle of welfare and giving the States flexibility. Those are issues that almost no one can argue with. We certainly need to be concerned about the distribution formula, about the maintenance of effort in the States, about training. We had to do some of these things in our Senate legislature. We had perverse incentives. We found it was more attractive for a single mother to stay on welfare than to go off to a minimum-wage job and lose health benefits and lose child care. We had to change that. So, Mr. President, I am very optimistic about our chances to do something that has not been done for a very long time. And I urge my fellow Members of the Senate to move forward, resolve these questions-- they can be resolved; that is what the system is for--and produce a result this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am today joined by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Senator Helms, the equally distinguished ranking minority member Senator Pell, and Senators Mack and D'Amato to introduce a resolution welcoming the visit to the United States this week and next of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The story of the 14th Dalai Lama is one with which I believe we are all familiar. Exiled from his homeland along with over 100,000 of his fellow Tibetan citizens, repeatedly frustrated and rebuffed in his sincere efforts to resolve their differences with the Chinese Government, His Holiness has never wavered in his determination to bring freedom and the full panoply of human rights to his people. His commitment to nonviolence in pursuit of the goal, even in the face of consistent provocations, has never faltered and earned him the Nobel Peace Prize. For 45 years since the forcible invasion and occupation of their country by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Tibetans have been subjected to systematic abuses and human rights violations. Those 45 years have seen the deaths of tens of thousands of Tibetans, the destruction of thousands of their temples and monasteries, the imprisonment of their religious and political figures, the forced sinocization of their country, and the systematic destruction of traditional Tibetan culture. Despite hollow Chinese declarations to the contrary, the present state of human rights in Tibet is deplorable. The Chinese Government continues to arrest and imprison Tibetans solely for their religious beliefs or for the peaceful expression of political dissent. Yesterday, the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs which I chair held a hearing on Tibet. Witnesses presented ample evidence of these continuing abuses; Mr. Gendun Rinchen, a former political prisoner in Tibet, very recently escaped across the Himalayas into India and flew here this week to provide us with firsthand testimony on the plight of the Tibetan people. Mr. President, the resolution is fairly self-explanatory. It extends the welcome of the Senate to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, urges the President to meet with His Holiness and to encourage the Chinese Government to sit down at the negotiating table with the Tibetan Government-in-exile, and reminds the Tibetan people that as they move forward in their struggle the Congress and the American people stand with them. In closing, I note that one of the central tenets of Tibetans' Buddhist belief is that life and its sufferings are transitory; this has allowed them to remain remarkably restrained since the invasion. I sincerely hope that sometime soon the Chinese Government will see fit to sit down with His Holiness and negotiate an end to the present unacceptable and untenable situation so that the Tibetan people no longer have to be patient in their suffering. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, while we were out of session over the last three weeks there were a number of important developments in Asia-- specifically Vietnam, Cambodia and China --to which I, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, would like to draw my colleagues' attention. First, the human rights situation in Vietnam continues to be of great concern. The weekend of August 12, barely a week after Secretary of State Christopher opened the newly-established U.S. embassy in Hanoi, a Vietnamese court convicted two Vietnamese-born U.S. citizens and seven Vietnamese nationals accused of being counter-revolutionaries and acting to ``overthrow the people's administration.'' The group, allied with the banned political party Tan Dai Viet, was apparently trying to organize a conference in Ho Chi Minh City (the former Saigon) to discuss human rights and democracy in Vietnam. After their first attempt failed, they tried to set up another meeting but were arrested 10 days before it was held. Radio Hanoi Voice of Vietnam, in somewhat characteristic rhetoric, described their ``crimes'' as follows: Taking advantage of our party's renovation policy, they used the pretext of democracy and human rights to distort the truth of history, smear the Vietnamese communist party and state, instigate bad elements at home, and contact hostile forces abroad to feverishly oppose our state in an attempt to set up a people-betraying and nation-harming regime. A check of their personal backgrounds indicated that they spent almost all their lives serving the enemy of our people and giving a helping hand to the aggressors' attempts to oppose our country. The administration warned them and used educational measures on them after it discovered their sabotage scheme. Nonetheless, they stubbornly contacted reactionary forces abroad and carried on their scheme aimed at opposing and overthrowing the people's administration. Their activities posed a particular danger to society and was detrimental to national security. Americans Nguyen Tan Tri and Tran Quang Liem received a 7-year and 4- year prison sentence respectively. In addition, the Vietnamese government's persecution of Buddhist leaders continues unabated. On August 15, a Vietnamese court sentenced a leader of a banned Buddhist church to five years in prison for criticizing Communist rule and maintaining an independent (i.e., outside direct Communist control) Buddhist church. The court convicted Thich Quang Do, secretary general of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), and five other activists in a 1-day trial. Thich Quang was accused of publishing a criticism of the Communist Party and sending two faxes to overseas Buddhists accusing the Vietnamese Government of obstructing a church-sponsored flood-relief mission in 1994. The other five were arrested for participating in that mission. Vietnamese authorities also recently announced that the government would soon try the acting head of the UBCV Thich Huyen Quang, who is under house arrest at the Quang Phuoc Shrine in Quang Ngai; and Thich Long Tri, UBCV's third highest official, who is under house arrest at the Vien Giac Pagoda in Hoi An, Quang Nam. The announcement is especially ironic given that since last year the government has systematically denied that Thich Huyen had ever been placed under arrest. On December 29, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry announced that reports of Thich Huyen's arrest were fabrications and that he had simply been ``moved to another pagoda at the requests of other monks.'' Mr. President, these are not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic denial of even the most basic human rights on the part of the Vietnamese government. Let me list just a few others: Thich Tri Tuu, the senior monk of the Linh Mu pagoda in Hue and a close disciple of the late Supreme Patriarch of the UBCV, is serving a four-year sentence on charges of ``public disorder'' at the Ba Sao prison camp, Nam Ha, Phu Ly province, in conjunction with the May 1993 protest in Hue. At the time of the demonstration, Thich Tri was being held in police custody, and police refused to let Buddhist monks who began the protests see him or talk to him. The crowd later saw him slumped in the back of a police vehicle, stopped the vehicle and extracted him from it--he had apparently fainted. He was placed, unconscious, into a cyclo-pousse which carried him back to his temple as the protest continued and certain persons in the crowd set the police vehicle on fire. Also still imprisoned at the Ba Sao camp on public disorder charges stemming from this protest are Thich Hai Tang and Thich Hai Thinh. Thich Hai Chanh was released, but not allowed to return to his residence at the Linh Mu pagoda in Hue and has been obliged to move to a pagoda in Quang Tri province. Thich Hanh Duc, appointed by the state-sponsored church to be abbot of the Son Linh Pagoda of Ba Ria-Vung Tau in 1982, was arrested in July 1993 when police attempted to enter the pagoda and a violent confrontation ensued. The Fatherland Front and the provincial people's committee issued an eviction order against Thich Hanh and other monks after the senior monk publicly read an oration of Thich Huyen Quang and expressed support for the restoration of the Unified Buddhist Church. In February 1993, the provincial committee of the state-sponsored church expelled him from the church for ``violating the principles of Vietnamese Buddhism.'' Thich Hanh Duc was ultimately sentenced to three years of imprisonment for ``crimes against on-duty officials'' and ``handing out documents hostile to the socialist government of Vietnam;'' he was last known to be detained at the Phuoc Co prison in Ba Ria-Vung Tau. Do Trung Hieu, formerly a Communist Party cadre in charge of religious affairs in Ho Chi Minh City and now a private businessman, was detained by police in Ho Chi Minh City on June 14, 1995. Hieu had written and circulated an autobiographical essay describing the Party's efforts to dismantle the Unified Buddhist Church after the war out of fear that its influence and following would spread throughout Vietnam. Hieu has reportedly been transferred to Hanoi for questioning, but his whereabouts have not been confirmed. Hoang Minh Chinh, a well-known communist intellectual, was also detained in Hanoi on June 14 this year. This was his third detention for criticizing Party policy; he had previously been arrested for advocating ``revisionist'' lines in 1967 and 1981. The cause of the latest detention appears to be petitions he sent to the highest levels of the Party demanding that his name be cleared for his previous jailings, and his questioning the propriety of the constitutional provision that enshrines the leading role of the Vietnam Communist Party. Doan Thanh Liem, a law professor who was educated in the United States, is serving a twelve-year sentence for ``counter revolutionary propaganda''--that is, notes he had prepared on constitutional reform. He was arrested in April 1990 for his association with Michael Morrow, Dick Hughes and Don Luce. He knew all three Americans from his participation in a well-known Saigon charity, the Shoeshine Boys. Liem, held in the Ham Tan camp, has developed a serious pulmonary condition in prison that is often associated with tuberculosis. Senator Harkin's request to meet with Liem was denied during his July 1995 visit. Nguyen Tri, also known as Truong Hung Thai, was sentenced to eight years at the trial of Doan Thanh Liem for having helped Liem purchase a typewriter and having received from Liem two documents the official press described as ``anti- communist.'' Doan Viet Hoat, one of Vietnam's most prominent political prisoners, was transferred abruptly among three different prisons last year, ending up in the Thanh Cam camp, a facility for common criminals in a remote and malarial part of Thanh Hoa province. Arrested in November 1990, Dr. Hoat was given a fifteen-year sentence on charges of ``attempting to overthrow the government'' for producing the reformist newsletter Freedom Forum. His transfers seem to have come in reaction to public statements which he has periodically been able to release since his initial detention. The move to Thanh Cam has isolated him from the outside world, and he is allowed only limited communication with his family. Pham Duc Kham, also tried for the Freedom Forum affair, was sentenced to sixteen years of imprisonment (later reduced to just under twelve years) for his participation. He was transferred in November 1994 from the Xuan Phuoc labor camp in Phu Yen province [[Page S 12606]] to the Cam Thuy camp Number 5, not far from the Thanh Cam camp in a remote part of Thanh Hoa province. Le Duc Vuong, tried for the Freedom Forum affair, was sentenced to a five-year term. He was last known to be performing hard labor at the A-20 camp in Xuan Phuoc. Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, an endocrinologist who was sentenced in 1991 to twenty years of imprisonment on charges of ``attempting to overthrow the government'' for publicly signing a declaration calling for political reform and respect for human rights, is reported to be in fair health, having received some medication for a kidney stone. He has been held in isolation at Xuan Loc prison camp for nearly two years, following the Vietnamese government's unwillingness to allow our colleague Senator Robb to meet him. Do Van Thac was arrested with five other members of the opposition Dai Viet Duy Dan (People's Party) on July 9, 1991. In January 1992, a court in Hanoi sentenced Do Van Thac to fourteen years' imprisonment--later commuted to twelve years--on charges of ``attempting to overthrow the government,'' apparently for circulating writings describing the People's Party and calling for political and economic reform. Vu Thanh, Dat Hai, Paul Nguyen Chau Dat, and five other members of the Congregation of the Mother Co-Redemptrix remain in prison. On May 15, 1987, these persons, along with Father Dominic Tran Dinh Thu and approximately sixty other Catholic clergy and laypersons were arrested when authorities raided the compound of the order founded by Father Dominic. During the raid, authorities seized rice stocks from the community and religious literature, causing people from the surrounding area to defend the congregation (and their rice stocks) with improvised arms. Vu Thanh, Dat Hai, Paul Nguyen Chau Dat and twenty others were tried on October 30, 1987 and convicted of ``sowing disunity between the people and the government.'' Vu Thanh Dat Hai was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment and three years of suppression of civil rights, and is now in the Long Khanh prison camp. Paul Nguyen Chau Dat was given a twenty-year term, which he is also serving in Long Khanh. Nguyen Van Thin Quan is serving a sixteen-year sentence in the Ham tan camp; Mai Duc Chuong Nghi is serving an eighteen-year term in a Thanh Hoa province labor camp; Dinh Viet Hieu Thuc is serving a fourteen-year sentence in the Long Khanh prison camp; Pham Ngoc Lien Tri is serving a twenty-year term at the Long Khanh camp, and Nguyen Thien Phung Huan is also serving a twenty-year term at Long Khanh. Pastor Nguyen Duc Loi and Pastor Nguyen Van Vui are reported to have been arrested on November 20, 1994 when proselytizing among the ethnic Hre minority in Quang Ngai province. According to unconfirmed local sources, the two have been accused of pursuing political activities under the guise of religion, and after their arrest officials ordered local Christians to cease all religious activities, including prayer meetings. Mr. President, in all the controversy surrounding the Clinton administration's recent questionable decision to normalize relations with Vietnam, the emotional and unresolved POW-MIA issue, and the blind headlong rush of United States business to enter the expanding Vietnamese market regardless, I believe that some Americans have lost sight of an important fact: the Vietnamese Government is a textbook Communist dictatorship to which the idea of basic human rights is simply a nuisance. No amount of talk about their modernizing their economy or welcoming American investment will change that fact. I am already seriously disinclined to support the establishment of a United States ambassador in Hanoi, or the granting of most favored nation status or OPIC funding for Vietnam because, unlike the administration, I do not believe that the Vietnamese have been as forthcoming as they could be on the POW-MIA issue; their human rights record makes me even less so. Moving on to Cambodia, Mr. President, following closely on the unfortunate expulsion of Sam Rainsy from the Cambodian legislature the government of that country has once again taken steps which call into serious question its commitment to its nascent democracy. Over the past year and a half, the frequency of the government's mistreatment of the domestic media and its suppression of the freedoms we have embodied in our First Amendment has become alarming; journalists critical of the government have been arrested and prosecuted and newspapers have been shut down. Just recently, the government charged the Phnom Penh Post and Michael Hayes, its American publisher, with violations of Article LXII of the Cambodian Criminal Code and is seeking to fine the publisher and close down the paper. Article LXII provides for a fine and up to 3 years imprisonment for publishing false or falsely attributed information in bad faith and with malicious intent when the publication has disturbed or is likely to disturb the public peace. In order to convict, the government must prove all three elements--falsity, malicious intent, and public disturbance. The story in question is an article by Nate Thayer in the March 24/April 6 edition entitled ``Security Jitters While PM's Away.'' The article detailed alleged security threats and measures taken by the government while the two Prime Ministers attended the April 1995 meeting of the country's principal aid donors. In reporting about the threats, Mr. Thayer clearly notes that many of the reported assertions were ``rumor'' or opinions or statements attributed to unnamed third parties. The article went on to cite ``human rights officials'' as saying that recent government actions against the press, the U.N. Center for Human Rights, and M.P. Sam Rainsy are the beginning of an official effort to put an end to criticism of the government that leaders say undermines its image at home and abroad as a democratic country. Despite the fact that from the particulars of the case I doubt very much that the government could actually prove a violation of Art. LXII, they have decided to proceed with the case. The purpose of that decision is clearly is two-fold. First and foremost, there is the chilling effect bringing a criminal prosecution has on other like- minded journalists; the threat of jail or a fine--even simply the threat of criminal litigation--can make even the most serious and accurate journalist skittish. The reason for picking on a foreign-owned paper is also clear; as a U.N. worker recently noted: The cases against the Khmer press are in a slightly different category because they have been persecuted for articles that are mostly opinion. The Phnom Penh Post and other Western--style newspapers are more troubling to the government because they deal with facts that can be proved true. They bring to light the inner workings of government and that bother [the government] far more than opinions that are sometimes insulting. Second, the government seeks to use the law to discover the identities of Mr. Thayer's sources. To prevent the government from proving the first element of an Art. LXII offense in court--false attribution--Thayer would be forced to disclose his sources. Any forced compromise of journalistic sources severely curtails the ability of a free press to report on, and the people's right to be informed about, matters of public interest. This is especially true in instances involving such issues as government corruption, where the power of the wrongdoers makes those knowledgeable about the wrongdoing hesitant to come forward. This is far from being the only time that the Cambodian Government has initiated an Art. LXII prosecution on flimsy grounds. Two Cambodian journalists have already been convicted under that provision for articles that, in my view, plainly reported opinions--which are by definition subjective rather than objective--rather than facts. On May 19, the editor of Oddom K'tek Khmer, Thun Bunly, was sentenced to a fine of R5,000,000 ($2,000) or one year in jail for printing a letter to the editor entitled ``Stop Barking Samdech Prime Ministers.'' The following day, Hen Vipheak was sentenced to a fine of R5,000,000 or two years in jail for a cartoon and satire of the three branches of government. Most recently, Thun Bunly was tried again, this time for expressing opinions highly critical of the government; he described certain government officials as greedy dictators. His paper was shut down and he was sentenced to a fine of R10,000,000 or two years in jail. Unfortunately, this blatant intimidation shows no signs of abating. Last week the Ministry of Information announced that the government is seeking prosecution on unspecified charges of between two and five newspapers. One of them, Samleng Yu Vachuon Khmer, has already received a court summons. In addition, the government has adopted a new press law that would allow criminal prosecutions where the published material affects national security and political stability--as nebulous a standard as I have seen--and permits the Ministries of the Interior and Information to confiscate publications they find objectionable or temporarily suspend publications without the [[Page S 12607]] approval or oversight of an independent court. Although the measure has yet to be signed into law by King Sihanouk and therefore is not legally in effect, it is being used to bring charges against the media. The repeated pattern of these prosecutions, as well as the fact that all of the alleged offenders have all stepped on the government's toes, leads me and groups like Human Rights Watch/Asia to conclude that the government has embarked on a program of intimidation aimed at quelling its detractors. That perception is not helped by statements such as those by Prime Minister Prince Ranariddh last month that foreign newspapers are distorting the current situation in Cambodia and that the Western brand of democracy and freedom of the press is not applicable to Cambodia. The Prince needs to be reminded, however, that the freedoms embodied in the Paris Accords are not Western, but universal, and as such were supported by each of Cambodia's political parties. In addition, they are embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Cambodia is a signatory. The Cambodian Government may believe that no one is watching, or that no one outside Cambodia cares, or that their actions are somehow excused by the nascent nature of their democracy; they could not be more wrong. Mr. President, we and the other donor countries are watching and we care. It is precisely because Cambodia's democracy is in its infancy that it is impor- tant to avoid the tendency towards this type of abuse; otherwise, Cambodia risks institutionalizing the behavior. If the Cambodian Government is unwilling to protect these universally recognized rights, and to protect journalists and others who peacefully advocate dissenting political views, then we and the other donor nations will ensure that there is literally a price to be paid. Last, but certainly not least, there were a number of developments in China which are noteworthy. First, on the brighter side, there appears to have been a slight warming in our bilateral relationship. On August 24, the Wuhan People's Court sentenced Harry Wu to a 15-year jail term and expelled him from the country, thus removing a serious obstacle to the resumption of friendly relations between us. A number of encouraging signs have followed. The Chinese have indicated that they will be sending back to Washington their ambassador, Li Daoyu, who was recalled after our decision to admit Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui for a private visit. Having previously broken off all high-level governmental contacts, the Chinese agreed to a 3-day visit by United States Undersecretary of State Tarnoff to discuss a variety of bilateral issues. In addition, on September 1, Li Xilin, the Guangzhou Military Area Commander of the People's Liberation Army, attended a ceremony in Honolulu marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II as the representative of Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian. There is also talk of an October summit meeting between President Clinton and his Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin. These contacts are important because they provide a venue for dialog and dialog keeps parties from misunderstanding each other. I am very pleased that it appears that the dip in our bilateral relationship has reached its nadir and is on the upswing. That is not to say, of course, that everything has returned to normal. Reports in the Chinese media, and statements from the Foreign Ministry, indicate that that government is still adhering to the unacceptable position that the United States is solely responsible for the current problems in Sino-U.S. relations; Washington should take all the blame for the problems. Mr. President, the PRC should be mindful of the adage that when you point the finger of blame at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you. If the Chinese were to indulge in one of their favorite political pastimes--self-criticism--then perhaps they would realize that it is they that may be at fault: their overreaction to President Lee's visit, technology transfers to Pakistan and Iran, failure to enforce its obligations in regards to intellectual property and arbitral conventions--the list goes on. The Chinese need to get over the blame game and get down to constructive dialog and constructive actions. Despite my generally optimistic feeling about the general trend in our relationship, however, there have been a number of developments there which are troubling to me. First, on August 17 China conducted its second underground nuclear test this year at its facility at Lop Nor--its fourth in the past 14 months. This test concerns me, and others, for the same reason as the proposed French tests in Mururoa; I believe that conducting these tests is damaging to international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In May of this year, the world's five acknowledged nuclear powers persuaded the rest of the world to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. To win that consensus, the five countries promised to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] by the end of the year. The continuation of Chinese testing though, only 4 months after China signed the agreement, calls into question that country's commitment to the CTBT and consequently undermines these international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. What possible incentive do other nuclear countries have to refrain from testing if others continue to test? I am not alone in my disappointment at this decision. Many countries in the region, including Australia and Japan, have been very vocal in their opposition. In fact, on August 30 Japan announced it will freeze most of its grant aid--about $81.2 million in fiscal year 1995--because of China's testing. Foreign Minister Kono Yohei told a news conference: ``We have decided to freeze aid to China with the exception of a portion that is provided for emergency relief measures and humanitarian aid--until China says it will stop nuclear tests.'' I would hope that Beijing would reconsider this course, not because we disapprove, or other countries disapprove, but because of the benefits that will accrue to the world as a whole as a result. Another issue, Mr. President, is the unfortunate Chinese decision to deny a visa to Hong Kong political leader Martin Lee Chu-ming. Lee is the Chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong, a principal voice of support for democracy in the colony; in that role, he has been a frequent critic of the communist government in Beijing. Lee needed the visa to attend the LawAsia conference in Beijing, to which he had been officially invited. But before he could apply, Zou Yu, the head of the local coordinating body the China Law Society, said there was no place [here] for people like him because he was one of the founding members of the subversive Hong Kong Alliance in Support of a Patriotic Democratic Movement. Ironically, Lee has a letter of invitation to the conference, which delegates had been told would be enough to have a visa issued on presentation, signed by Mr. Zou. Before I hear it from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, I will state at the outset that I fully recognize that who the PRC does or does not admit within its borders is purely an internal matter in which third countries have no right to interfere. Certainly, Lee's statements in support of democracy are not music to the senior cadres' ears and if they choose to exclude him on that basis so be it. However, I believe that it would have been in China's best interests to admit him. Such a move would have been greatly reassuring to Hong Kong--to both its citizenry and business interests--and would have gone a long way to bolster China's stature worldwide. As it stands though the Chinese move seems petty and vindictive, and calls into question both its post-1997 commitment to the continuation of democracy in Hong Kong and its ability to impartially host international conferences. The PRC has a disturbing habit of seeking to host these conferences in an effort to boost its international image, only to then heap a host of conditions on the attendees to ensure that nothing comes up at the conference which might embarrass China by, say, openly discussing its abysmal human rights record. The LawAsia Conference and Martin Lee are one example; another is the present U.N. women's conference in Beijing. When it became clear to the Chinese authorities that the participants in the conference's NGO forum are prone to spontaneous demonstrations and statements in support of a [[Page S 12608]] variety of causes the regime finds threatening--democracy, opposition to coerced abortion, the role of women in society--the forum suddenly found itself moved a substantial distance outside Beijing to the small village of Huairou. The official reason was that the Beijing stadium originally planned to hold the forum was structurally unsound--despite the fact that only 2 weeks ago the Chinese held a major event there. The unofficial reason is clear to everyone; Chinese authorities are doing their best to make sure that the flood of delegates does not contaminate China or its citizenry with foreign ideas and open dialog. Official statements to the contrary aside, the Chinese are fooling no one. As the Chinese themselves are fond of saying: ``Actions speak louder than words.'' Once Beijing began to prepare for the conference, the patterns of isolating delegates and imposing censorship became clear. Delegates with views with which China disagrees were denied visas. Groups representing Tibetan and Taiwanese women were unfairly denied accreditation, lest they embarrass the host country. Thirty delegates from Niger were denied visas; ostensibly because their paperwork was not entirely in order, but more likely--as almost everyone believes--because Niger diplomatically recognizes Taiwan. Delegates who were allowed in were warned that Chinese customs officials would confiscate any printed material China deemed objectionable, including Bibles. Buses that were promised to run every 20 minutes from Huairou to Beijing have dwindled to one per day, effectively isolating the delegates at Huairou even more. The U.N. designated ``newspaper of record'' for the forum--chronicling the meetings and seminars and reporting on the day's events--has been unable to publish because the Chinese firm with which they contracted is suddenly and inexplicably ``too busy with other printing work.'' I think one of the especially telling examples of this trend is the creation of an ``official protest site'' for the conference. Predictably sited outside of Beijing in Huairou, the official spot is located on a middle-school athletic field within the confines of the forum, where an extra 5,000 police officers will be on duty. There, separated from the Chinese people by an artificially imposed chasm, the delegates are free to protest to their hearts content-with one exception. Vice Minister of Public Security Tian Qiyu has announced that ``Inside the site, NGO's are permitted to have demonstrations and processions, but these should not infringe on the sovereignty of the host country and should not slander or attack [its] leaders.'' In other words, say what you want just don't criticize China. So much for an open forum. The actions of the Chinese Government became so oppressive that they threatened to scuttle the entire forum. Complaints from a large number of delegates about the omnipresence of Chinese security police hovering over them grew with each passing day of the forum, and for good reason. Both uniformed and plainclothes police monitored meetings and discussions, and videotaped participants. Security officers have searched hotel rooms, followed delegates, rifled through personal papers and tried to restrict the movement of people who have come to take part in the conferences. On August 31, following a screening of a video about Tibet entitled ``Voices in Exile,'' police snatched the video cassette and attempted to confiscate it, only to have it snatched back by the attendees. Another group of delegates protesting China's treatment of Tibetan women were surrounded by Chinese plainclothes police and shouted down; one Canadian woman, the adoptive mother of a Tibetan child, was even physically assaulted. Although the Chinese denied such an assault took place, it was captured on video and broadcast here by CNN. A session held by Australian NGO's was disrupted when security officials seized microphones and video equipment and ordered the groups to disband; the Australian Government lodged a formal protest in response. In another incident, police tried to seize a Chinese woman who chatted with delegates on the street. When the woman was surrounded by delegates, though, the police retreated. The Chinese moves are especially galling because under the agreement signed by the Chinese the forum site is considered to be under U.N., rather than Chinese, jurisdiction for the duration of the conference, much like embassies are considered to be. Things got so bad that on September 3, the leaders of the forum issued an ultimatum to the Chinese demanding that China stop its heavy- handed security measures by noon on that day. In response, the Chinese grudgingly replaced some uniformed officers with plainclothesmen and scaled back some of the surveillance. Despite the changes, though, clashes between police and delegates continue. Just this last weekend Islamic women demonstrators were physically prevented by police from marching out of the forum site into Huairou. Given this somewhat ironic Chinese penchant for actively seeking to host international conferences dealing with human rights and the free exchange of ideas only to trample those very rights, I would not be at all surprised if the next time the PRC seeks to host such a meeting the participants think twice; and the Chinese--although they will certainly try--will have no one to blame but themselves. As I have pointed out previously, if China wants to assume a place at the international table, then it must respect international rules and norms of behavior-- in trade, in diplomacy and military affairs, in nonproliferation, and not least in domestic practice.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I am dismayed to report to my colleagues this morning that the People's Republic of China has announced that it will conduct a new series of guided missile tests in the East China Sea between August 15 and 25. What dismays me about the announcement is that the tests--staged by the People's Liberation Army--will be the second series in less than a month to be conducted just off the coast of southeastern Zhejiang Province, and that the southern perimeter of the test area is only 90 miles north of Taiwan. The PRC conducted similar tests of six air-to-air missiles from July 21 to 26 in an area only 60 kilometers north of Taiwan's Pengchiayu Island. The missiles test-fired consisted mainly of Dongfeng-31 intercontinental ballistic missiles and M-class short-range tactical missiles. At the same time, the PLA mobilized forces in coastal Fujian Province and moved a number of Jian-8 aircraft to the coast. It is likely that this new round of tests and exercises will be similar. These tests clearly have a political purpose, and are meant as a warning to Taiwan to cease its efforts at expanding its international recognition. Although the PRC's Foreign Ministry, through its spokesman Shen Guofeng, has repeatedly denied any such purpose, I would remind them of one of their own sayings: ``Listen to what a person says, but watch what he does.'' These are the actions which call into serious question in my mind the validity of Mr. Shen's statement. The tests are being conducted within as close a proximity of Taiwanese territory as possible. While similar tests are a usual part of the annual training exercises of the Chinese 2d Artillery Corps, these are the only times in many years that the tests have been announced publicly. The tests follow closely on the heels of the private visit of President Lee Tang- hui to Cornell University, and amid a flurry of mainland Chinese invective denouncing the visit and President Lee. In conjunction with the tests, Taiwan intelligence reported that the PRC was planning on conducting a joint sea-air military exercise codenamed ``Jiu-wu-qi'' and that on July 16 the PRC Air Force stationed a number of F-7 or F-8 aircraft at airports located within 250 nautical miles of Taiwan--a highly unusual and provocative move. The PLA is clearly the principal force pushing for the tests. At a time when the jockeying for position in the PRC's transitional post- Deng Government continues, taking what can be perceived as a soft stance toward either the United States or Taiwan is considered by many to be the equivalent of political suicide. When the Party and military hierarchy were assured by the Foreign Ministry that the United States would never allow President Lee [[Page S 12343]] to visit, only to have the visa approved a few days later, it caused a serious ``we-told-you-so'' backlash from the hardline conservative PLA leadership. In order to maintain credibility with the military, and continue to enjoy their support, the political hierarchy has decided to react strongly--one would almost say overreact--to President Lee's visit and other perceived threats. Mr. President, although the Taiwan Government and people have shown remarkable restraint in calmly facing these latest antagonisms, I am sure that a continuation of the mainland's provocations cannot go unanswered for long. This is especially true in light of statements such as a recent pronouncement by Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian, reported by the Chinese official news agency Xinhua on July 31, that the PLA will not undertake to give up the use of force in settling the Taiwan issue. Certainly, as the perceived threat to Taiwan increases, so too will their reaction. The PRC's tests are clearly behind an August 2 statement by Lt. General Ju Kai-sheng, President of Taiwan's Army Artillery Training School, that Taiwan is ready to establish anti- missile systems to beef up its defensive capabilities. Toward that end, Taiwan has struck a deal with the Massachusetts-based Raytheon Corp. to purchase approximately $796 million worth of Patriot missiles. If the Beijing Government continues in this antagonistic posture, it will only end up shooting itself in the foot. I would remind the Beijing Government that pursuant to the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States can supply defensive military technology to Taiwan. While we have not been predisposed over the last few years to exercise that right, continuing threatening military displays aimed at Taiwan will, I am sure, have an effect on that posture that the PRC will likely not appreciate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I come to the floor today to respond briefly to French President Jacques Chirac's decision to conduct a series of underground nuclear test explosions in the South Pacific between September of this year and May 1996. I strongly believe that President Chirac's decision to conduct these tests will be damaging to international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union began a test moratorium in October 1990; France initiated its own in April 1992, although it had not exploded a device since 1991, and the United States and Great Britain have similarly observed a moratorium since 1992. Continuing the trend toward minimizing the nuclear threat, in May of this year the world's five declared nuclear powers extended indefinitely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. On June 13 of this year, however, President Chirac--citing the need to check the reliability and safety of France's existing nuclear arsenal--announced that country would conduct eight nuclear tests at its site at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific. That decision is unfortunate for three principal reasons. First, it is likely that a resumption of testing by France will result in the disintegration of the current testing moratorium and a renewal of underground testing by other states. Moratoria are like truces--they are only good as long as all the parties to them observe their provisions. Second, it calls into serious question France's commitment to the NPT extension. In May, the world's five nuclear powers--the United States, France, Russia, China, and Britain--persuaded the rest of the world to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To win that consensus, the five countries promised to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty by the end of next year. The resumption of French nuclear testing though, only 4 months after France signed this agreement, I believe calls into question France's commitment to the CTBT and consequently undermines these international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Japan's Prime Minister, Murayama Tomiichi, has accused France of betraying nonnuclear countries, while Minister of Science and Technology Tanaka has stated that ``Nations that possess nuclear weapons must show their wisdom and set an example to countries that do not have nuclear weapons.'' Third, Mr. President, the French decision to test is vehemently opposed by most, if not all, of the countries along the Pacific rim, most of which have publicly condemned the decision. I have been visited by the Ambassadors of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, among others, all of whom have conveyed their Governments' opposition to nuclear testing in their ``backyards.'' Australia's Prime Minister recently summed up his country's position in an article in the German daily Die Welt: Australia and its citizens, and the peoples and governments of many other countries, are outraged about the French Government's announcement that it intends to resume nuclear testing in Mururoa. I believe the French people will understand such feelings very well. The mood in the South Pacific countries is general: If France has to test these weapons, it should do so on its internal territory. Whatever the French Government intends to achieve with these actions, they are seen by the overwhelming majority of the people in this region as a big nation's attack on the rights of smaller ones. The decision to resume the tests is inevitably regarded as a return to old colonial attitudes. This is all the more tragic since most recently France's relations with the countries in the region have become much more positive and fruitful. Neither Australia nor the other countries in the region want France to withdraw from the Pacific. On the contrary, we want to cooperate closely and well with it. However, it is one of the lamentable consequences of this decision that many people in the region now doubt the legitimacy of France's role. * * * * * Australia's concern is increased further by the additional responsibility that arises this year from our role as chairman of the 15 members in the South Pacific Forum. In this function we speak on behalf of all countries in the region; many of them are small and economically vulnerable and all of them have a deep material and spiritual relationship with the Pacific Ocean. I am convinced that I speak for the members of the Forum when I continue to urge France to rescind its decision and when I stress that in this case it would gain considerable prestige not only in the South Pacific countries but among all the peoples in the world. The French Government has mentioned the safety of the environment with regard to the tests in Mururoa. However, we are most deeply concerned about the possibility of accidents. And no one can foresee the long-term dangers that arise from a potential destruction of the sensitive atoll structures during the tests. Australia's reaction is neither precipitate nor a mere reflex. Australia can point to a long history of responsible diplomatic efforts with regard to nuclear issues. Together with the other South Pacific countries, in the 1970's Australia opposed France's atmospheric tests and, upon our initiative, the South Pacific nuclear-free zone was established in 1985. Australia has also been active regarding nuclear issues in the United Nations and in [[Page S 12208]] other international forums. Often, we acted in close cooperation with France, in particular since President Mitterrand's highly welcome decision to declare a nuclear test moratorium in 1992. These efforts were combined on 11 May with the decision by the international community to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] for an unlimited period--an important element for the safety of our two countries. Neither Australia nor any other country has the right to define France's security; however, given the circumstances, the French will certainly permit me to explain why, in our view, France's action is not good for France or for the world. We believe that these tests endanger our efforts to preserve the effectiveness of the NPT and to achieve universal membership. For the unlimited extension of this treaty it was decisive that a ``declaration of principles and goals on nonproliferation and disarmament'' was simultaneously negotiated and adopted by all states involved, including the nuclear states. This declaration announced the speedy conclusion by 1996 at the latest--of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. And until such a treaty comes into effect the nuclear states have committed themselves to ``extreme restraint.'' However, ``extreme restraint'' regarding nuclear tests hardly applies to a program of eight tests. France's decision will certainly make many non-nuclear states wonder about the honesty of all nuclear states. This will harm the treaty's credibility, which must be preserved if some states, which have not yet signed it, are to be persuaded to do so. The decision will also increase the problems in the negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Despite President Chirac's gratifying statement that France will sign such a treaty, there is the serious danger that the very difficult treaty negotiations that we are facing in Geneva will become even more difficult. In particular France's position as a responsible and leading power in the world means that any new French test will play into the hands of potential arms dealers and that any test will make many of those countries hesitate whose support we need to conclude a comprehensive treaty. We know the arguments for France's nuclear capacity and the strategic dimensions of a nuclear power very well. We argue not merely on the basis of emotions when we say that the biggest responsibility for us all is the one to keep alive the hope for a nuclear-free world, which was born when the Cold War ended. The burden of this responsibility rests most heavily on the nuclear states, particularly after the unlimited extension of the NPT. And in view of the nuclear experiences in Europe, the biggest challenge for leadership certainly is right in front of Europe's own door. The damaged Chernobyl reactor may have been encased in a sarcophagus, but there are still another 20 reactors with similar design flaws on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Dozens of nuclear powered submarines of the former Soviet fleet are now idle. Nuclear material and nuclear expert knowledge are leaking from the former Soviet Union into illegal markets. These dangers, as well as the stocks of dismantled nuclear weapons and contaminated areas, are not precisely banished by the development of further nuclear weapons capacities. But France's top international skills in nuclear science and technology could help. How much more respect would France gain and how much more useful would it be if the country were not to concentrate its skills and energy on countering a purely hypothetical threat but on meeting a real threat! I do not doubt that the Australians want to make it known in France that their attitude is in no way determined by hostility toward the French people or the French nation. Our opposition specifically refers to the French Government's decision to resume the nuclear tests in the Pacific. In the past Australia's attitude was sometimes understood as an expression of some kind of Anglo-Saxon hostility toward France. However, Australia is certainly not an Anglo-Saxon enclave in the Asia-Pacific region. As the many French who live in Australia can confirm, Australia is a rich multicultural society, in which half of the immigrants come from Asian countries. It is clear that many of these French inhabitants of Australia think that the French Government should rescind its decision. If they live on Australia's east coast, they know that there is an enormous difference between studying a map of the Pacific in Europe and actually living on the shores of the ocean in Sydney or Brisbane or Auckland. The map shows these places to be far away from Mururoa. However, if one lives in these places, one knows that the South Pacific--no matter how gigantic it is constitutes a single environment and links everyone who participates in it. The community spirit that the Pacific Ocean gives us is similar to the one given to France by the idea of ``Europe.'' It is the fundamental reason for our opposition to France's decision to resume the tests and for the fact that Australia and its partners in the South Pacific Forum will not stop emphatically presenting our views to the French Government and conveying to the French people, if we can, the depth of our feelings. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Akaka intends to introduce an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill this week expressing the sense of the Senate that France must abide by the current international moratorium on nuclear test explosions, and refrain from proceeding with its announced intention of conducting a series of nuclear tests in advance of a comprehensive test ban treaty. I support that amendment, and hope that the French will reconsider their position on conducting these tests and that the CTBT will be signed by the end of next year.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the bipartisan amendment I am offering today addresses an issue that is critical to ranching families in my State of Wyoming and throughout the West. The initiative would put in place a 90-day moratorium on implementation of Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt's rangeland reform proposal, which is scheduled to take effect August 21, 1995. Soon after the Secretary released his plan on February 22, 1995, Senators Pete Domenici and Larry Craig introduced S. 852, the Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995--of which I am an original cosponsor--to amend Bruce Babbitt's initiative. However, faced with a full legislative agenda and time constraints, the Congress was not able to take up and debate this issue before its scheduled summer recess. As a result, a group of western Senators, myself included, met with Secretary Babbitt just this morning to ask him to refrain from putting his final rule in place administratively. Unfortunately, the Secretary was unwilling to work with us and grant additional time, which left no other alternative than to offer this amendment. Mr. President, I believe this entire discussion comes down to a matter of fairness. If Bruce Babbitt's proposal would not have completely dismantled the way livestock grazing is conducted on public lands there would not be a need for action. As many will remember, 2 years ago the Secretary of Interior proposed a plan soundly rejected by people throughout the West because it would have forced many small-to medium-sized ranchers out of business. Congress sent a clear message to Mr. Babbitt by defeating his plans. Now, however, the Secretary intends to carry out his ideas administratively and believes Members of Congress should no longer have a voice in this issue. I strongly disagree. What we are talking about here are the livelihoods of thousands of ranchers in my State and across the West. Folks everywhere tell me that if they are forced to live under the rules outlined in Bruce Babbitt's initiative, they could lose their business. I am not going to let that happen. We have made great progress on the Public Rangelands Management Act. It passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support, and I am certain that with an additional 90 days the Senate will also pass this measure with the support of Republicans and Democrats alike. I would like to thank my colleagues who cosponsored this important amendment and I urge its adoption.