[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8842-S8851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DISAPPROVING THE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE 
   RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO THE PRODUCTS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
                       CHINA--MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Smith, is recognized to offer a motion to discharge the 
Finance Committee of S.J. Res. 27, on which there will be 1 hour of 
debate equally divided.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974 and the rules of the 
Senate, I do make a privileged motion that the

[[Page S8843]]

Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of 
S.J. Res. 27, a resolution disapproving the President's June 3, 1999 
extension of normal trade relations with China.
  It is my understanding that based on the parliamentary decisions made 
earlier, the 1 hour will be equally divided, a half hour under my 
control and a half hour under the control of the other side, not by 
majority/minority, but by the two sides, pro and con.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is also my understanding, for the 
benefit of my colleagues, that there will be two consecutive rollcall 
votes, the first one being on the China discharge and the second one on 
the Vietnam discharge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, notice of my intention to 
do these discharge motions was made to both the majority and minority 
leaders, the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and 
several other Senators on July 7, so there would be ample time for the 
leaders to adjust the time so we could have a vote prior to the House 
voting on this matter.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes out of my allotted time.
  Despite President Clinton's 1992 campaign promise to link MFN 
certification to China's human rights record, the administration has 
chosen annually to grant Beijing what had been known as most-favored-
nation status and is now called normal trading relations. It is amazing 
to me that that certification could be granted, given the dismal record 
of China in so many ways that we have talked about on this floor for so 
many weeks, especially in the area of human rights.
  By offering this motion, I am asking the Senate to discharge S.J. 
Res. 27 from the Finance Committee. This legislation would disapprove 
the President's recommendation of normal trade relations status for 
China. Because of the rules of the Senate, it is in the Finance 
Committee. If I don't discharge it out, then it doesn't come out, and 
we don't get the opportunity to debate this issue.
  This is a very important issue. Let me say, again, as I said earlier 
this morning on the Vietnam issue, whether my colleagues agree or 
disagree with me is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they 
will let us debate this on the floor. That is the issue. If they vote 
against my discharge motion, then they have said they do not want the 
Senate to debate this issue at all. They don't want to hear about the 
human rights violations in China or Vietnam. I would find that 
regrettable if the Senate made that decision.
  If they feel strongly that they are right and there are not any 
problems in China which would justify holding up the NTR, normal 
trading relations, then they ought to come down on the floor and defend 
that.
  I have a few things I could share with Senators that I think will 
give them the opposite impression. I would want the opportunity to do 
that on behalf of so many Americans who are fed up with the fact that 
we keep giving MFN, or most-favored-nation trading status, to a country 
who has been so abysmal on human rights violations, not to mention 
stealing our nuclear secrets.
  I have come to expect the President to ignore China's total disregard 
for human rights, its proliferation of nuclear weapons, and its piracy 
of U.S. technology by continuing Beijing's trading relationship with 
our country, but what I don't understand is why. Why are we doing this? 
Why are we afraid to debate this? Are we afraid we are going to find 
out how much technology has been pirated? Are we going to find out how 
much proliferation of nuclear weapons has actually occurred, how many 
human rights violations have occurred in China?

  The answer is, yes, of course, we are going to find out, because I am 
going to present this on the floor if I get the opportunity to do it. 
Regrettably, the opposition is going to try to deny me that opportunity 
and probably will win. They win; the American people lose.
  I will point out a few facts--I only have 30 minutes; I don't get the 
10 hours I would have under the law, if, in fact, my discharge petition 
motion is approved. Unfortunately, I have to assume I am not going to 
get it and make the point as fast as I can in 30 minutes.
  Since 1949, Communist China has operated one of the most brutal and 
repressive regimes the world has ever known. Indeed, the Beijing 
government has committed large-scale genocide in Tibet. It has killed 
millions of its own citizens, outlawed religion, obliterated freedom of 
the press, and fought against the United States in Korea and Indochina.
  In 1989, the Chinese Government authorized a crackdown on thousands 
of students who had the courage to stand up for human rights and 
democracy, and crack down they did. We all know the sad stories that 
came out of that period of time in China's history. The actions of the 
Beijing government have also served to undermine international 
stability and U.S. national security interests. China continues to 
violate the missile technology control regime, exporting to rogue 
states like Iran, North Korea, and other nations. They export our most 
sensitive technology, which in some cases they stole and in other cases 
they bought, believe it or not, from the United States.
  Moreover, China has failed to assist the United States in fully 
accounting for American POWs held by the Chinese forces during the 
Korean war. Certainly, the theft of our nuclear secrets by Chinese 
agents has been on our minds in the past several months. The Cox report 
provides extensive evidence on the damage done to our national security 
by Chinese espionage. But I am also very concerned about China's 
notorious and seemingly blatant disregard for U.S. intellectual 
property laws.
  Over the last decade, Chinese exports to the United States have 
increased seven times in comparison to American exports to China, 
creating a significant trade imbalance. During this time, some of the 
most rapidly growing and most competitive U.S. industries have been 
adversely affected by China's failure to enforce intellectual property 
rights. These include computer software, pharmaceuticals, agricultural 
and chemical products, and trademarks.
  American businesses are losing billions because of this persistent 
problem. Yet the President marches forward saying normal trade 
relations is perfectly acceptable. I don't understand it. How can the 
administration justify their decision to reward the Communist Chinese 
Government NTR status when that government has such a deplorable record 
of protecting just one issue--U.S. intellectual property rights--not to 
mention many others which I will be getting into.
  Peace and economic stability in Asia are in America's interest and 
require Chinese-American cooperation. Unfortunately, the President's 
decision to reextend NTR status to Communist China effectively rewards 
Beijing for rejecting reasonable American demands for protection from 
this intellectual property rights piracy, for cooperation on 
international nonproliferation efforts, and for a greater respect for 
basic human rights.
  Now we are hearing the ominous signs of the saber rattling around 
Taiwan. These threats of military acts of violence threaten the 
stability of the entire region in the Pacific rim. How can you justify 
giving a nation that has done this, and is doing this, most-favored-
nation trading status?
  Perhaps the most egregious are the human rights violations which we 
appear to condone by granting this NTR status to China. It has a 
terrible human rights record. I have heard so many times from my 
colleagues, some of whom are going to be denying me by a vote the 
access to be able to debate this, how terrible the human rights 
violations are in China. Their policies on the political dissidents, 
religious freedom, and population control are abhorrent. The State 
Department report on China's human rights practices illustrates an 
appalling picture. It provides example after example of torture, forced 
confessions, suppression of basic human rights, denial of due process, 
and, worse of all, forced abortion and sterilization. Is this a 
government to which the United States of America should give most-
favored-nation status? I don't think so.
  All I am asking for is the opportunity to go into these matters in 
detail and debate this on the floor of the

[[Page S8844]]

Senate. This is not a vote on whether you agree or disagree. It is very 
interesting. I was thinking as I walked down to the floor from my 
office a few moments ago that the President of the United States took 
the U.S. military, put them in harm's way and bombed the sovereign 
nation of Yugoslavia to protect the human rights of the Albanian 
Kosovars. I can't even get the Senate to give me the opportunity to 
debate human rights violations in Vietnam and China. That is the bottom 
line. That is what we are talking about today.
  The President--I will repeat this--went to war in Yugoslavia to 
protect the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo, and I am going to 
be denied on this floor, by a vote, the opportunity to debate--just to 
debate--human rights violations in China and Vietnam. They don't want 
to hear it. That is the bottom line. If you can live with that in your 
conscience, fine. It is a sad, sad situation.

  All I am asking for is what is required under the law. Give me 10 
hours and I will agree to reduce the 10 to 2. I will say to my 
colleagues, wherever you are out there, it is 10 hours by requirement; 
but I will agree to 2 hours on my side if you will support my motion. 
Give me the opportunity to show you on this floor what China and 
Vietnam are doing by voting for both of these motions.
  Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor to give some time to 
the other side.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the feelings and good 
intentions of the Senator from New Hampshire, but I respectfully oppose 
this motion to discharge the Finance Committee from considering the 
resolution to disprove extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for China. 
Why do I do so? First, I say to my good friend from New Hampshire, he 
has lots of opportunities to debate human rights, or any similar 
issues, on the floor. He can offer an amendment to any bill. That is a 
standing rule of the Senate. Any Senator can offer an amendment to 
virtually any bill at any time. He has that right. The rules of the 
Senate provide for unlimited debate. So he can talk for as long as he 
can physically stand on his own two feet. He has plenty of opportunity, 
as do all Senators, to raise issues that concern them.
  I think it is inappropriate to discharge the Finance Committee from 
considering the resolution to disapprove an extension. Why? Very 
simply, because the current process has worked pretty well.
  I am somewhat bemused when I think back on how furious the debate was 
on this issue--oh, gosh, it must be 4, 5, 6 years ago. In fact, I was 
one of the few Members of the Senate on the Democratic side who voted 
to sustain the veto of President Bush on this very measure, as a 
consequence of President Bush's intention to extend unconditional MFN--
now NTR--status for China, which prevailed. Ever since then, gradually, 
over the years, each President, each year, has reached the same 
conclusion after studying all the issues--that there should be a 1-year 
unconditional extension of most-favored-nation trading status. We have 
changed the name now to normal trade relations status. That is more 
accurate--more normal than most favored. In fact, for all intents and 
purposes, it is least favored. That is because the United States has 
trade agreements with many other countries which give them favorable 
terms of trade compared with the standard of MFN, or NTR.
  Over the years, as more and more Americans have become more familiar 
with this question, and as the Congress has become more familiar, it 
has now come to the point where the vast majority of Members of 
Congress agree that annual unconditional extensions make sense, pure 
and simple. That is why we are here today. Several years ago, it was a 
huge debate. Now, over the years, it has come to be virtually a 
nonissue. It is virtually a nonissue because the vast majority of 
Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, and 
Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, know that to do otherwise would 
cause a tremendous upheaval of our relationships with a very important 
country--in this case, China.
  I think it is important as we enter the next millennium that we deal 
with other countries with tremendous respect, recognizing that 
countries have interests. China has its own interests, and the United 
States has its own interests. The real question is how do we get along 
better with each other, in a way that accommodates American points of 
view.
  The basic policy, as announced by the Presidents over time, has been 
engagement. I say it is basically engagement without illusions; that 
is, we talk with countries, but we are realistic about what they do or 
do not do. But we do not cut off something that is very basic, 
something that we grant to virtually every country in the world, 
including a lot of others that I can name that have foreign policies 
and internal policies that are inimical to the United States, but 
nevertheless we think to deal with those countries, it is best to 
maintain the current trade relationship with them.
  One of the huge adverse consequences that have been caused by this in 
the past would be the clear setback of negotiations between the United 
States and China over China's membership in the World Trade 
Organization. That is a clear winner for the United States, as long as 
it is done on commercially acceptable principles. The last agreement 
that Premier Zhu tabled for the United States when he was in Washington 
not too long ago was clearly in the United States best interest. Why? 
Because it was unilateral.

  In every case, it was China that was making concessions. It was China 
opening up its markets to American products. It was China that changed 
its distribution system. It would be China that would agree to--a much 
more fancy term is ``transparency''--much more openness, which 
undermines corruption, which undermines favoritism. It brings the 
Chinese economy much more into the modern world.
  If this resolution were to pass, I will bet my bottom dollar we would 
have no WTO this year, and probably not for the next couple of years. 
Then the relationship with China, if you think they are risky now, 
would make today's relationship look like a cake walk. We have China's 
difficulties with Taiwan. They will be there for the indefinite future.
  There are problems we have now with China over the tragic, mistaken 
bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. We have very deep human 
rights concerns. We have concerns about China's--in the past, anyway--
transfers of missile technology, and perhaps nuclear weapons, to rogue 
nations.
  But let's remember, China has taken a lot of actions which have been 
very helpful to the United States. What is one?
  China abstained at the U.N. Security Council when we wanted the 
Security Council resolution on Kosovo. China could have caused all 
kinds of problems and could have vetoed that Security Council 
resolution but did not.
  China also signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. They have signed 
it. As far as we know, they have not violated it.
  They helped us in the gulf war, particularly by their actions with 
the Security Council. They helped with North Korea and the problems we 
have with North Korea, and particularly the greater potential problems 
we might have if North Korea starts sending missiles farther out into 
the Pacific.
  But if this resolution passes, all those problems I mentioned are 
going to be exacerbated and all the good points I mentioned will become 
irrelevant and not helpful in our relationship with that country.
  It is a very important country to deal with in a very solid, 
commonsense way. China is the largest country in the world. China has 
the largest freestanding army in the world. China has the largest 
population in the world. China is a nuclear power. China is the fastest 
growing developing country in the world. It is a major power. We can't 
close our eyes to China.
  I am not saying we should accept what China is doing. I am not saying 
we should accept what any country is doing that is adverse to American 
interests. But I am saying that we have to, with eyes wide open, look 
at China and engage China without illusion. That is the policy.
  If this resolution were to pass, believe me, we would be disengaging

[[Page S8845]]

China. China would be so upset--and they should be, if it were to 
pass--and we would be dealing with China as an enemy and not as a 
country that is separate from us.
  There is an old saying in life that if you stick your finger in 
somebody's eye and you treat somebody like the enemy, guess what. They 
are going to be an enemy; they will react adversely. That is exactly 
how this would be recognized if it were to pass.
  There is another important point. It is procedural. Procedural 
matters, I might add, are not unimportant. This measure has been 
reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee unfavorably. So it 
is highly likely that this resolution will not come over to the Senate. 
If that is the case, why are we going through all of this? It doesn't 
make any sense.

  I suggest, with deep respect to the other body, and with deep respect 
to my friend from New Hampshire and to my fellow colleagues, that if it 
comes up in the House, despite the recommendation of the House Ways and 
Means Committee, they pass the resolution, and it comes over here, then 
we will take it up and we will debate it. But it is premature to take 
it up at this time when it is clear, because of the House vote, that it 
will not pass the House and therefore will not be ripe as an issue over 
here.
  But the fundamental reason is that this resolution, if it were to 
pass, would cause many more problems than the purported solutions that 
lie under the premise of this motion.
  Again, all Presidents who have looked at this issue and all 
Congresses that have looked at this issue have reached the same 
conclusion--Republican and Democrat--that continuing the grant on an 
annual basis of unconditioned, normal trade relations with China will 
create the foundation and the condition for a much greater probability 
that we are going to achieve the success we want with various other 
issues that we have with China.
  I oppose this move to discharge the Finance Committee from 
considering the resolution to disapprove extension of Jackson-Vanik 
waiver authority for China. It is an unnecessary attempt to alter a 
process that has worked well in providing for Congress' role in the 
annual NTR debate.
  America's economic and trade relations with China have developed 
significantly over the past decade. I fervently hope that we will be 
able to resume WTO negotiations with China, complete a good commercial 
agreement, and extend permanent NTR quickly and in time for China to 
join the WTO in November in Seattle.
  This is important for our businesses, important for our workers, and 
important for our country. I have no illusions about the serious 
problems we have with China, whether it is human rights, arms 
proliferation, espionage, Taiwan, or other areas. But using NTR, 
whether it is the annual extension or the permanent granting of that 
status, is not an effective way to influence China and move them in a 
direction we would like to see that society go. It holds our economic 
interests with China hostage to other aspects of the relationship. We 
need to regularize and normalize our trading relationship with China. 
We need to put predictability and stability into that trading 
relationship so that our industries can improve their ability to do 
business with China.
  This resolution to discharge, although seemingly procedural, has an 
intent that damages our businesses, our workers, our farmers, and our 
Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort.
  I see my colleague. I guess he is going to yield time to one of our 
colleagues.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise today in opposition to the President's decision to extend 
normal trade relations status to China.
  I especially thank the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing up the 
issue today.
  I have objected to the President's policy on this issue since 1994, 
when he first de-linked the issue of human rights from our trading 
policy in China. The argument made then was that trade privileges and 
human rights are not interrelated. At the same time, it was said, 
through ``constructive engagement'' on economic matters, and dialogue 
on other issues, including human rights, the United States could better 
influence the behavior of the Chinese Government.
  I have yet to see persuasive evidence that closer economic ties alone 
are going to transform China's authoritarian system into a democracy, 
or even reduce the current level of oppression borne by the Chinese 
people. Unless we continue to press the case for improvement in China's 
human rights record, using the leverage of the Chinese Government's 
desire to expand its economy and increase trade with us, I do not see 
how U.S. policy can help conditions in China get much better.
  Virtually every review of the behavior of China's Government 
demonstrates that not only has there been little improvement in the 
human rights situation in China, but in many cases, it has worsened--
particularly in the weeks preceding the tenth anniversary of the 
Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4th. More generally, five years after 
the President's decision to de-link trade from human rights, the State 
Department's most recent Human Rights Report on China describes once 
more an abysmal situation.
  In my view, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion except 
that ``constructive engagement'' has failed to make any change in 
Beijing's human rights behavior. I would say that the evidence 
justifies the exact opposite conclusion: respect for human rights by 
the Chinese government has deteriorated and the regime continues to act 
recklessly in other areas vital to U.S. national interest.
  This year--1999--is likely to be the most important year since 1989 
with respect to our relations with China. Not only does it represent a 
significant milestone for the victims of Tiananmen Square, but 1999 is 
also the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. 
This year has also seen the emergence of new thorny issues between the 
United States and China, including the accidental embassy bombing, 
faltering negotiations regarding accession to the World Trade 
Organizations, and the recent release of the Cox report on Chinese 
espionage.

  If moral outrage at blatant abuse of human rights is not reason 
enough for a tough stance with China--and I believe it is, as do the 
American people--then let us do so on grounds of real political and 
economic self-interest.
  For example, China has failed to provide adequate protection of U.S. 
intellectual property rights; it has employed broad and pervasive trade 
and investment barriers to restrict our exports; it has made illegal 
textile transshipments to the United States; it has exported products 
to the United States manufactured by prison labor; and it has engaged 
in questionable economic and political policies toward Hong Kong.
  This does not present a picture of a nation with which we should have 
normal trade relations. Alternatively, if the Administration accepts 
these practices as normal, perhaps we need to redefine what normal 
trade relations are. The current practices are certainly not any that I 
wish to accept as normal.
  Nor, Mr. President, do I wish to accept as normal the practice in our 
country of using campaign money to influence policy decisions, but I'm 
afraid that the China/NTR decision is far from an exception to this 
rule.
  No, Mr. President, U.S.-China trade policy epitomizes how our 
campaign finance system can influence important decisions. The 
corporations and associations lobbying in favor of China NTR, as well 
as on China's accession to the World Trade Organization, represent a 
virtual who's who of major political donors. In an effort to inform my 
colleagues and the public about who's who in the push for NTR for 
China, I'd like to Call the Bankroll on some of the companies and 
associations involved in this fight.
  These big donors represent industries that run the gamut of American 
commerce--from agribusiness to telecommunications and everything in 
between--but they all have in common a keen financial interest in China 
winning normal trade relations status.

[[Page S8846]]

  One of the major coalitions lobbying to boost China's trade status, 
USA Engage, has a membership list brimming with top PAC money and soft 
money donors.
  Let me name just a few examples of the political donations some of 
these USA Engage members gave during the last election cycle:
  Defense contractor TRW Inc. gave more than $195,000 in soft money and 
$236,000 in PAC money.
  Financial services giant BankAmerica gave more than $347,000 in soft 
money and more than $430,000 in PAC money.
  The powerful business coalition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave 
nearly $50,000 in soft money and $10,000 in PAC money
  Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, gave $331,000 in 
soft money and nearly half a million dollars in PAC money.
  Communications giant Motorola gave more than $100,000 in both soft 
money and PAC money.
  Mr. President, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The list goes on 
and the money is piled high.
  Over in the other body, junior members--who of course sit in the most 
remote offices in the far corners of the House office buildings--say 
that the only reason corporate CEOs come visit their offices is to push 
for NTR status for China.
  So you see, Mr. President, on the one hand, some of the most powerful 
interests in America come to our offices to call on us to grant NTR 
status to China. We hear them loud and clear, and more than that we 
know too well the influence they wield as a result of their political 
donations.
  But Mr. President, what about the other side? What about the voices 
we don't hear? The faces we don't see? I am talking about the human 
rights organizations who oppose de-linking trade from human rights, but 
are virtually nonexistent in the world of campaign contributions. I am 
talking about the thousands, if not millions, of Chinese people living 
without basic human rights who don't have access to the Halls of 
Congress.
  I fail to see anything normal about the United States extending 
favorable trading status to a government that routinely denies basic 
freedoms--of expression, of religion, and association--to its people.
  I fail to see what is normal, what is acceptable, or what is just 
about the United States tacitly condoning the actions of a country 
where our own State Department reports that the human rights situation 
is--quote--``abysmal.''
  Mr. President, my main objective today is to push for the United 
States to once again make the link between human rights and trading 
relations with respect to our policy in China. As I have said before, I 
believe that trade--embodied by the peculiar exercise of NTR renewal--
is one of the most powerful levers we have, and that it was a mistake 
for the President to de-link this exercise from human rights 
considerations.
  So, Mr. President, for those of us who care about human rights, those 
of us who long for freedom of religion for others, and those of us who 
believe America should demonstrate moral leadership in the world, I 
urge colleagues to join me in disapproving the President's decision to 
renew normal-trade-relations status for China.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 8 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee, I 
rise in strong opposition to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 27. My 
objections to the motion and the underlying resolution, and to bringing 
them up at this point in time, are both procedural and substantive.
  My first procedural objection is that while the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Smith] is within his rights to move to discharge the 
joint resolution pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2192(c) and 2193, by 
doing so he is effectively seeking to bring it to the floor by 
completely circumventing the committee process. S.J. Res. 27 was 
referred to the Finance Committee on June 7 of this year. As my friend 
the distinguished chairman of that committee [Mr. Roth] has noted 
today, the committee has had no opportunity to hold hearings on the 
relative merits of the resolution, to amend it, or to prepare a report 
on it to the full Senate. A piece of legislation this important, that 
would--if passed--have a huge effect on what I believe will be our most 
important bilateral relationship in the next century, deserves to be 
considered fully by the committee of jurisdiction without having that 
process short-circuited by a single Senator--especially one that is not 
a member of the committee in question.
  Second, the Senate still has a number of vitally important 
appropriations bills to complete before Congress recesses for August. 
There is no connection whatsoever between these legislative matters and 
the joint resolution. There exists no time exigency which makes it 
important to lay aside debate on appropriations bills in order to 
debate China NTR nor, for that matter, which makes it important to 
circumvent the statutory process set out for the consideration of 
resolutions like S.J. Res. 27.
  And that brings up my third procedural objection. Pursuant to the 
Trade Act of 1974, it is the practice of the Senate that a resolution 
of disapproval of a renewal of NTR status must originate in the House. 
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2192(f)(1)(A)(ii) and 2192(f)(1)(B), any 
resolution of disapproval which passes the Senate before receipt from 
the House of a similar or identical joint resolution is required to be 
held at the desk until the House acts and passes such a joint 
resolution. H.J. Res. 57, the companion resolution to S.J. Res. 27, was 
introduced in the House on June 7, 1999, and referred to the Committee 
on Ways and Means. On July 1, the committee considered the resolution, 
and ordered it to be reported adversely by voice vote. The full House 
has yet to act on that report. So even if for some reason which escapes 
me the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] can justify his urgent 
desire to bring his legislation to the floor, where is the logic in 
putting the procedural cart before the horse and acting before the 
House does?
  Those are my procedural objections to the motion. But I also oppose 
the resolution, and thus the motion to discharge it, on substantive 
grounds. In my five years as subcommittee chairman, I have always fully 
supported unconditional NTR status for China and done so for several 
reasons: some practical, some policy-based.
  First, from a practicality standpoint, I firmly believe revoking NTR 
would hurt us more than the Chinese--the economic equivalent of cutting 
off your nose to spite your face, or, as the Chinese say, ``lifting up 
a rock only to drop it on your foot.'' In 1998, U.S. exports to China 
directly supported over 200,000 U.S. jobs. In 1995, China bought $1.2 
billion worth of civilian aircraft, $700 million of telecommunications 
equipment, $330 million of specialized machinery, and $270 million of 
heating and cooling equipment. Those figures have grown since then.
  China is now the world's third largest economy, and will continue to 
grow at an impressive pace well into the next century. The World Bank 
estimates that China will need almost $750 billion in new investments 
to fund industrial infrastructure projects alone in the next decade. 
Cutting off NTR--and the Chinese retaliation that would surely follow--
would only serve to deprive us of a growing market. China is perfectly 
capable of shopping elsewhere and our ``allies'' are more than happy to 
step into any void we leave. We recently saw a prime example of that 
willingness; in 1996 then-Premier Li Peng traveled to France where he 
signed a $2 billion contract to buy 33 Airbuses--a contract that Boeing 
thought it was going to get.

  Second, instead of using the NTR issue as a carrot-and-stick with the 
PRC, I believe the best way to influence the growth of democratic 
ideals, human rights, and the rule of law in that country is through 
continued economic contacts. I think anybody who has been to China, 
especially over the course of the last 15 years, has seen that for 
themselves. One of the strongest impressions that I take away from 
every trip I make to China in my capacity as subcommittee chairman is 
the dramatic effect that economic reform has had on the population. As 
you

[[Page S8847]]

travel south from Beijing to Guangzhou where the greatest economic 
development has taken place, it is clear that economic development and 
contact with the West through trade has let a genie out of the bottle 
that the regime in Beijing will never be able to put back.
  Local government officials do not want to talk about the Taiwan 
dispute; they want to talk trade. Local businessmen do not want to talk 
about political ideology; that want to talk about increasing their 
profits and establishing a legal framework in China within which to do 
business. Local citizens do not care about the latest pronouncements 
from the Central Committee; they care about increasing their incomes 
and bettering their living conditions. People of the hundreds of 
thousands of villages where local democratic elections have been held 
have made it clear they would not quietly return to the old way of 
doing things.
  The development of a market economy is the best way to encourage 
democratic reform. We have seen it in South Korea, we have seen it in 
Taiwan, we have seen it in the former Soviet Union, and I believe that 
we are beginning to see it now in China.
  Third, revoking NTR would have a damaging effect on the economies of 
Hong Kong and Taiwan--two of our closest friends in the region. A vast 
majority of our China trade passes through Hong Kong and Taiwan; in 
addition, revoking NTR would have the greatest impact in the southern 
China provinces of Guangdong and Fujian where Hong Kong and Taiwanese 
businessmen have made substantial investments. Just for the limited 
sanctions and countersanctions proposed during our dispute over Chinese 
infringement of our intellectual property rights in 1996, the Hong Kong 
government estimated that Hong Kong would loose 11,500 jobs, $13.4 
billion in reexport trade, and 0.4 of a percentage point from a 4.6% 
GDP. The effects would be much more pronounced were NTR to be involved.
  Fourth, NTR is not some special treatment or favor that the United 
States passes out rarely; it is the normal tariff status with our 
trading partners. Only 8 countries are not accorded that status: 
Afghanistan, Zerbaijan, Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and 
Serbia. To cast China into that grouping of pariah states would do 
irreparable damage to our bilateral relationship, and to the security 
and stability of East Asia as a whole.
  With the demise of the cold war, and changing world realities, we 
would do better to repeal Jackson-Vanik and the yearly theater that 
surrounds the China NTR debate. It only serves: to make U.S. businesses 
nervous--they never know from one year to the next whether they will 
have NTR, and their investments in China, yanked out from underneath 
them; to complicate our relationship with the Chinese--the annual 
debate always reminds them that we treat them differently than almost 
every other country and some of the ensuing rhetoric in the debates is 
less than helpful to the relationship; and, to compromise our 
credibility both with the Chinese and in Asia in general--threats to 
revoke NTR have yet to be carried out and conditioning has never 
worked.
  I am not an apologist for the PRC--far from it. My subcommittee has 
held numerous hearings highlighting Chinese human rights abuses, 
oppression in Tibet, saber rattling aimed at Taiwan, unfair trade 
practices including tariff and non-tariff barriers, and the recent 
allegations of espionage--all issues I have raised personally with 
Chinese leaders from President Jiang on down. But no matter how 
maddening or ill-advised Beijing's behavior, I do not believe that 
withholding NTR is an effective instrument of foreign policy vis-a-vis 
China. In fact, I believe that there is no more effective way to 
influence the PRC than engaging China and slowly drawing it into the 
family of nations. If there is a way, I have yet to be made aware of 
it; I just know that the revocation or conditioning of NTR is not it.
  For all these reasons then, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the motion to discharge S. J. Res. 27.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to my very good friend, 
the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in 
opposition to the Smith resolution on normal trade relations for China. 
Once again, the Senator is confronted with an effort to circumvent the 
legislative process and radically change U.S. policy towards China. I 
oppose this effort. But I also caution my Senate colleagues, that the 
approach advocated here today is very dangerous to U.S. foreign policy.
  United States-China relations are at a very delicate stage now. The 
relationship is very troubled at the moment. The accidental U.S. 
bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and accusations of Chinese 
nuclear espionage have given policymakers in both countries numerous 
reasons to be cautious about this important relationship.
  Today's debate will be a brief one. With my time, I want to make a 
couple of points to articulate why we must once again defeat the effort 
to deny NTR or MFN status to China.
  First, trade is the foundation of the United States-China 
relationship. Certainly, there are problems on the trade front. We have 
a troubling deficit, problems with issues like transshipment and 
intellectual property rights violations, and market access issues--to 
name just a few. Many of these issues are under consideration in the 
talks led by the United States over China's accession to the World 
Trade Organization. I continue to support China's accession to the WTO 
on commercially viable terms. I think we are very close to a WTO 
agreement that will be strongly supported by the Congress.
  Yes, trade with China is very important. But, perhaps more important, 
is the fact that trade has opened China's doors to the world. Our 
government is able to engage China on a number of issues from drug 
smuggling to cooperation on issues like human rights, North Korea, 
nuclear expansion in South Asia, and global environmental problems. 
Like it or not, if we end our trade relationship with China as some 
suggest, all of these beneficial openings to China will be curtailed or 
lost.
  It is not just government-to-government contacts that we should be 
worried about. My personal opinion is the American people are having a 
far greater impact on the Chinese people than any congressional debate 
could ever have. Students and scholars, adoptive parents, business and 
tourist delegations, sister city delegations, and local government 
officials from my state are actively engaged in China. These folks are 
making a difference that benefits both the American and Chinese people. 
I do not want to see these people-driven initiatives for change 
jeopardized by passage of this resolution.
  One in five people in Earth live in China. It is an immense 
population that impacts Us all in so many ways--the world's food 
supply, pollution problems, and the use of natural resources, to name a 
few. The United States has the ability to cooperatively assist in 
China's development; we must not shy from this opportunity to aid both 
the Chinese and American people.

  My second point addresses reform in China. Within China today a 
furious debate is raging. Leaders like President Jiang Zemin and 
Premier Zhu Rhongi are under attack by more conservative anti-Western 
forces. The Embassy bombing and other issues have emboldened the hard 
line forces within China's leadership. There are elements within the 
Chinese Government that do not want to move forward with constructive 
ties with the United States.
  The resolution before the Senate today, in my estimation, sends a 
very dangerous message to China. The message is the United States is 
recoiling towards a more confrontational posture towards China. Passage 
of this resolution will strengthen those in China who argue that China 
should treat the United States as an adversary. If that happens, the 
relationship will certainly spiral in dangerous directions for both the 
Chinese and American people.
  If we undermine the reform forces in China, it will have dangerous 
implications for this country. At the United

[[Page S8848]]

Nations, where China is a permanent member of the Security Council, the 
United States will have a very difficult time as the world's lone 
superpower. In Asia, where economic recovery is beginning to take place 
and where we have 100,000 military personnel, our efforts to preserve 
decades of peace will be jeopardized. And, the United States will be 
alone in the world in seeking to isolate China economically, 
potentially causing problems with our allies in Europe and Asia.
  Though I strongly oppose this resolution, I do not mean to imply that 
the China relationship is easy or that the United States should make 
concessions to the Chinese. That is simply not the case. The United 
States-China relationship is very difficult for this country and will 
be so for some time. I have many objections to Chinese actions. But, I 
believe, to change China, we must be an aggressive participant in the 
global effort to engage the Chinese Government and the Chinese people.
  This resolution before us today would seriously threaten our ability 
to contribute to change in China. And that is clearly not in our 
national interest. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Smith resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 55 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I cannot let go 
unchallenged on the floor the accusation that I am circumventing the 
legislative process. I think my colleagues know that is not true. This 
is the act, the Trade Act of 1974. I have it in my hand. I would 
encourage my colleague to read it before making accusations that are 
simply false.

       In the committee of either House to which a resolution has 
     been referred, that has not been reported at the end of 30 
     days after its introduction, and counting any day which is 
     excluded under section 154(b) it is in order to move either 
     to discharge the committee from further consideration of the 
     resolution or to discharge the committee from further 
     consideration of any other resolution associated with this.

  The bottom line is, this went to the committee on June 3. It has 
remained there to this day. More than 30 days have passed. The bottom 
line is, which is perfectly legitimate under the rule, the Finance 
Committee does not have to discharge it. If they do not discharge it, 
what happens is China gets its NTR status, and Jackson-Vanik is waived.
  So I am exercising my right in doing what I am doing. And for 
colleagues to come down here and say I am circumventing the legislative 
process simply is not true. I would like to go back and see how some of 
my colleagues voted on some of these matters.
  I have heard on the floor that it is inappropriate to debate this 
issue; it is inappropriate to talk about it. ``Take morning business 
and come down here,'' or ``speak at midnight when nobody is watching.''
  There is a process here. It is written in the law that the Senate has 
an hour on the motion to determine whether or not to discharge, and 
then if we pass these motions I am offering on China and Vietnam, we 
have the opportunity to debate this.
  So I am hearing that it is inappropriate for the Senate to debate 
something provided under the law. Why in the world is it inappropriate 
to debate anything on the floor? If you want to know what is wrong with 
this place, this is a pretty good example. ``It is inappropriate to 
debate what's going on in China and Vietnam on the Senate floor.''
  Let me tell you what is inappropriate. With all due respect, what is 
inappropriate is the fact that the Communist Chinese are threatening 
Taiwan with missiles. What is inappropriate is what the Chinese 
Communist Government did to the people of Tibet. What is inappropriate 
is the fact that the Chinese Government put hundreds of thousands, 
maybe millions of dollars into U.S. elections. What is inappropriate is 
that they have tried to take over the Long Beach shipyard. What is 
inappropriate is that the Chinese have gobbled up the port leases on 
both sides of the Panama Canal. What is inappropriate is population 
control. What is inappropriate is forced sterilization. What is 
inappropriate is killing unborn children, female children. That is what 
is inappropriate. What is also inappropriate is trying to run over 
peaceful protesters with tanks in Tiananmen Square.
  So do not tell me it is inappropriate to debate something on the 
floor. It is an outrage that this Senate will not approve this motion 
and allow the opportunity to do that.
  Let me come to the floor and debate these issues. They do not want me 
to come to the floor, I say to the American people. That is why my 
resolutions are going to go down, because they do not want to hear 
about it, because the administration has made a decision to grant most-
favored-nation status, normal trade relations--a decision to look the 
other way while China does these appalling things.

  I say, with all due respect--I said it earlier, and I will say it 
again--this President went to war and put American forces in harm's way 
to protect the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo. And I can't get 
a resolution passed to debate human rights violations in China or 
Vietnam. What does that tell you? Is this America? Do you want to know 
what is wrong with politics? This is what is wrong with politics.
  In China, they can do what they want. China is a sovereign nation. I 
guess, under the Clinton policy, we may be bombing them tomorrow. I do 
not know if it is human rights violations. Apparently, we cannot talk 
about them in the Senate. However, let me read you a little bit about 
what goes on in China from the 1998 State Department Human Rights 
Report.
  Disciplinary measures against those who violate policies can include 
fines (sometimes a ``fee for an unplanned birth'' or a ``social 
compensation fee''), withholding of social services, demotion, and 
other administrative punishments . . . intense pressure to meet family 
planning targets set by the Government has resulted in documented 
instances where family planning officials have used coercion, including 
forced abortion and sterilization, to meet government goals. During an 
unauthorized pregnancy, a woman often is paid multiple visits by family 
planning workers and pressured to terminate the pregnancy.
  It goes on and on and on.
  Are we going to give most-favored-nation status to this country? This 
is the issue. We are going to give it to them without giving me and 
other Senators in this body the opportunity to debate it on the floor? 
Welcome to America, for goodness sakes.
  I thought the Senate was the greatest deliberative body in the world 
where all of the great debates took place. I am standing at Daniel 
Webster's desk. He would probably turn over in his grave if he heard 
that we would refuse to debate something as important as this. Daniel 
Webster stood on this floor, the strong advocate, year after year, 
against the outrage of slavery--and we cannot talk about China and 
Vietnam because my colleagues will not allow me to bring these 
resolutions out.
  It is outrageous. I just do not understand it. It is exactly 
everything that is bad and wrong and outrageous about politics and 
about the process around here. I am sick of it. It is wrong.
  Yes, bringing these motions is within the rules. Somebody put it in 
there. But for goodness sakes, what is fair is fair. It is not a 
question of me coming to the floor and saying: Well, nothing is 
happening in China; I'm just going to come down on the floor and create 
some problems here and tell you about things I made up, or I'm going to 
say nothing is going on in Vietnam.
  I am not making this up. Right today, in the Washington Times:

       Chinese companies transferred missile components to North 
     Korea last month in a sign Beijing is stepping up arms sales 
     in response to the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in 
     Belgrade. ``We are concerned about Chinese entities providing 
     material for North Korea's missile program,'' a senior 
     administration official told the Times. ``In our judgment, 
     the Chinese government has no interest in seeing North Korea 
     develop its missile technology.'' The Pentagon believes that 
     some of the missile technology contains material of U.S.-
     origin, and that the transfers violate Chinese promises not 
     to ignore international missile export controls barring such 
     sales to rogue states, said U.S. intelligence officials.


[[Page S8849]]


  Apparently we are not upset enough, are we? We are going to give them 
normal trade relations and look the other way. You steal our secrets; 
you abort your children; you forcibly abort female children; you saber 
rattle in Taiwan; you threaten to run over peaceful demonstrators with 
tanks. A priest was murdered a couple of months ago on the streets of 
Beijing. You give contributions to one of the major political parties 
in America, and we are going to look the other way.

  We are not even going to debate it. I say to the people out there in 
America: Watch the vote. You will see it. One right after another, they 
will come down here and Smith will lose on Vietnam and Smith will lose 
on China. And the American people will lose the opportunity to debate 
it.
  I cannot do this in 30 minutes. I would like to go into some of these 
matters in detail, but I do not have the time. That is the rule. I have 
30 minutes, an hour equally divided. That is it.
  So I just say to my colleagues, give me the opportunity to debate 
these matters on the floor so I can point out to you the human rights 
abuses and the flagrant violations of both of these countries. Vietnam 
does not deserve the Jackson-Vanik waiver and China does not deserve to 
be given normal trade relations.
  Mr. President, I see my time has expired. I yield back the last 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the 
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I point out to my friend from New Hampshire that he did, indeed, have 
the floor. The parliamentary process seems to be working. He has 
mentioned those aspects on which he disagrees with China five or six 
times apiece now since I have been on the floor in only the last 10 
minutes. I don't think he should be that concerned about not being able 
to debate.

  There were those of us on the other side of the aisle who were trying 
to debate something called the Patients' Bill of Rights for several 
weeks, and we were denied that. Well, this is a tough body. One does 
the best they can.
  I think terminating normal trade relations with China would be an 
enormous mistake. I have often said one of the greatest speeches I have 
ever heard on the floor was given by Senator Jack Danforth. It was the 
last one he ever gave on the floor. It was a number of years ago when 
he retired. He talked about the fact that every Senator wants to be a 
Secretary of State, and every Senator thinks that he or she is a 
Secretary of State. Every Senator thinks that he or she ought to act as 
Secretary of State, and that about half of us try to. There is an 
endless opportunity because you can bring up other countries and bring 
up all the things you don't like about them.
  The Senator from New Hampshire doesn't approve of different of their 
social policies, so he brings them up. He has a chance to speak about 
them. None of this, in my judgment, has to do with the self-interest of 
the United States of America. What is foreign policy? What is trade 
policy? It is meant to be the self-interest of the United States of 
America.
  The Senator, as he concluded his argument, actually said that China 
was taking over, implying that they had taken over the Panama Canal. 
That came as a surprise to me because I read the news fairly diligently 
and haven't heard that. What I do know is this: China has been through 
5,000 years of history, and I have studied it quite carefully. They 
have never had a single day of stability that they could count on. In 
fact, even under Confucian philosophy, the people always have, in the 
so-called five relationships, the right to overthrow the emperor any 
time they want, and they frequently have.
  They are, as the Senator from Washington indicated, one-fifth of the 
world's population. They are an absolute key. The very worst thing I 
can imagine us doing at this time would be to terminate normal trade 
relations.
  If the Senator from New Hampshire, as he says, believes that the 
Chinese are not treating the Taiwanese well, if you want the Taiwanese-
Chinese relationship, the PRC-Taiwanese relationship, it is not a zero-
sum game. The best relationship between the PRC and Taiwan is always 
going to be under those conditions wherein the United States and the 
PRC have the most normal, natural, and efficient relationship. That 
means we will disagree on many things, but we will also do a number of 
things, which we have been doing for years: For example, trading, 
exchanging students, learning more about each other. Americans have 
always had a kind of love/hate relationship with China. It is part of 
the mysticism, the mystery of our intangible history of the past 
centuries with them.
  We have never really understood China very well. We don't understand 
China very well today. But one thing I know, if we terminate normal 
trade relations, it is going to give the upper hand to the very people 
in the People's Liberation Army, some of the younger turks there who 
are the people that, in fact, in 1996 led the move to point missiles at 
Taiwan and who are probably right now doing everything they can to 
destabilize Zhu Rhongi and President Jiang Xemin, who are trying to 
reform China, to stabilize China, to deregulate China, to make China 
into a more modern economy with, all the time, 120 or 140 million 
people that are completely homeless wandering around the country.
  I strongly advise my colleagues to vote against what is quite an 
outrageous resolution, which has no place whatsoever on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I also rise to urge my colleagues to 
vote against the motion to discharge the Committee on Finance from 
further consideration of the resolution disapproving the extension of 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver authority for normal trade relations with 
China.
  Beyond the procedural problems my colleagues outlined regarding 
taking up this measure today, there are clear and crucial reasons to 
oppose this motion because the underlying disapproval resolution should 
also be opposed on its merits.
  Let me state that I agree with my colleague on the goals he seeks to 
achieve by pursuing this motion, but I disagree with his methods.
  I too am concerned about the recent espionage reports and the 
implications for our national security.
  I too am concerned about China's destabilizing weapons sales.
  I too want China to resolve peacefully her territorial disagreements 
in the South China Sea.
  I too want China to lower barriers to U.S. exports and to reduce her 
trade surplus with the United States.
  I too want China to end her military threats against Taiwan and to 
resolve peacefully her differences with Taipei.
  And I too want China to respect the basic human rights of its 
citizens.
  But I do not believe that withdrawing normal trade relations status 
will force China to satisfy any of our objectives. Indeed, sanctioning 
China by withdrawing NTR runs the risk of making that country more 
belligerent and less cooperative on these and other issues.
  Moreover, revoking NTR would be contrary to American interests and 
the interests of the American people.
  Experience shows that unilateral trade sanctions generally don't 
work. The chances of success only improve when sanctions are applied in 
cooperation with our major allies. However, not one of these allies is 
even debating whether to withdraw NTR status from China.
  Let's be clear on this point. If we revoke NTR status for China, 
Beijing would certainly be hurt, but so too would the United States.
  As a result of withdrawing NTR, U.S. duties on goods imported from 
China would immediately rise to the tariff rates established under the 
highly protectionist, depression-era Smoot-Hawley tariff law.
  Because NTR is provided on a reciprocal basis, China would respond to 
higher tariffs on her goods by slapping higher tariffs on U.S. goods. 
Such a move will slam the door shut on U.S. exports to the Chinese 
market--the fastest-growing market in the world for the highly 
competitive American aircraft, telecommunications, and automotive 
equipment industries.
  These export opportunities will go instead to the Europeans, the 
Japanese,

[[Page S8850]]

the Canadians and firms from all the other countries in the world which 
continue normal commercial relations with China.
  In addition to severely damaging U.S. exporters, the small and large 
American firms that have invested billions of dollars to penetrate the 
Chinese market would see their efforts and investments jeopardized.
  The economic fallout from withdrawing China's NTR status is not only 
going to hit American companies, but also American consumers. Our 
lowest income citizens, in particular, would suffer from the 
dramatically higher prices they will have to pay for a variety of basic 
goods as a direct result of the imposition of substantially higher 
duties on Chinese imports.
  There are those who claim that pricing Chinese goods out of our 
market through higher duties would be beneficial because the products 
we now import from China would be produced in the United States. But 
any business person will tell you the truth is that in almost all cases 
imports from China will be replaced not by American products but rather 
imports from other developing countries.
  We must also recognize that cutting ourselves off from China by 
withdrawing NTR will severely limit our ability influence developments 
in China, including how China treat its citizens and whether it permits 
the development of a freer society.
  Mr. President, it is also important to recognize that the United 
States already has specific, measured and targeted tools at our 
disposal that allow us to address problems with China without resorting 
to the indiscriminate and destructive approach of revoking NTR.
  For example, we can adopt the Kyl-Domenici-Murkowski amendment to 
reorganize the Department of Energy to prevent further losses at our 
national weapons laboratories.
  We can involve targeted Section 301 sanctions for discrete 
discriminatory and unreasonable Chinese trade practices.
  We can continue to expose and condemn China's repressive human rights 
record in this Chamber and in organizations around the world.
  We can counter China's threats to Taiwan by considering sales of 
upgraded defensive weaponry to Taipei, as well as by reaffirming our 
unwavering commitment to a peaceful resolution of the dispute between 
Taiwan and China in the context of our one China policy.
  We can rely on international law and the shared interests of the 
countries of Southeast Asia to counter aggressive Chinese territorial 
claims.
  I want to note here, moreover, that neither the Taiwanese--who are 
never shy about voicing their opinions to Members of Congress--nor the 
countries of ASEAN which have territorial disputes with China, support 
the United States revoking NTR for China.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that revoking NTR would not 
advance the goals for China which I share with my colleague, and will 
likely worsen our problems with China. And it would put at risk 
hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars worth of 
American exports and investments.
  With so much to lose and nothing gained, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this motion.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
motion to discharge the Finance Committee from further consideration of 
S.J. Res. 28. I oppose the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire 
because I believe passage of S.J. Res. 28 would be a step backward and 
would jeopardize our efforts to encourage political and economic change 
in Vietnam.
  Mr. President, I am confident my colleagues on both sides of this 
debate share the same goal: helping to create a democratic Vietnam. We 
all want to see a Vietnam that respects the rights of all of its 
citizens. A Vietnam whose society is based on the rule of law. A 
Vietnam that protects private enterprise and abides by international 
commercial standards. A Vietnam that cooperates with the United States 
in seeking to end the pain and the lingering questions of the thousands 
of American POW/MIA families.
  While we share the same goal, we fundamentally disagree on how best 
to achieve a democratic Vietnam. Those who support S.J. Res. 28 believe 
we are more likely to promote democratic reforms and the human rights 
of the Vietnamese people by discontinuing our dialogue with the 
Government of Vietnam. They believe we can encourage the transition to 
free market economics by putting U.S. businesses in Vietnam at a 
disadvantage relative to their global competitors and making it more 
difficult for them to operate. Finally, they believe we can improve 
Vietnamese cooperation in solving outstanding POW/MIA cases by 
jeopardizing successful, joint investigative and recovery programs.
  Proponents of this legislation will argue passage of S.J. Res. 28 
would only have the minimal effect of denying the President's waiver of 
the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. The truth is, this vote 
is a referendum on our entire policy of engaging Vietnam. Those who 
support this Resolution have opposed every effort to normalize U.S.-
Vietnamese relations. With this Resolution, they are trying to take us 
back to the policy of the 1980s that sought to isolate Vietnam from the 
United States both diplomatically and economically. This policy failed 
in the 1980s, and will undoubtedly fail again.
  Mr. President, proof of the failure of disengagement is found in the 
fact that since renewing our diplomatic relations with Vietnam we have 
seen progress on the issues we care about. I attribute most of this 
improvement on the ability of our government to communicate with 
Vietnam through normal, diplomatic channels. This progress will 
continue if we allow people like Ambassador Pete Peterson to continue 
to impress upon the Government of Vietnam the seriousness with which we 
attach to issues such as democratization, human rights, and POW/MIAs. 
Passage of this Resolution will undermine Ambassador Peterson's 
efforts, will force us to step back from our policy of engagement, and 
will endanger the progress we have already achieved.

  This is not to say that we do not continue to have issues with which 
we disagree with the Vietnamese government. Economic and social reforms 
are not progressing quickly enough. We continue to hear of cases where 
the rights of political dissidents are not respected. And until every 
POW/MIA is accounted for, we will continue to press the Vietnamese 
government for answers. However, the authors of S.J. Res. 28--those who 
oppose continued normalization of our relations with Vietnam--have 
failed to explain how disengaging from Vietnam will encourage their 
government to take positive action on any of these issues.
  Mr. President, those who prefer isolation simply fail to fully 
understand the power of the United States to act as a catalyst for 
societal and economic change. We cannot be this catalyst for the 
Vietnamese people if we are not fully engaged in Vietnam. I would argue 
we need to be more engaged than we are today. Where we disagree with 
Vietnamese government, we should forcefully challenge them. And where 
we see the budding signs of reform, we should foster its growth. We 
cannot do this if--as those on the other side propose--we do not 
continue to move forward in our relationship with Vietnam.
  Passage of S.J. Res. 28 is a step backward. Rather than going back, I 
believe we should look forward. We should look for ways to fully 
unleash the power of our people, our ideals, and our system of 
government to help the Vietnamese achieve the goal of democracy. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 28.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I believe that concludes the number of 
speakers who wish to speak on this matter and, therefore, I yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on both resolutions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 
nays on both resolutions: the China resolution and the Vietnam 
resolution.

[[Page S8851]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                          ____________________