[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 106 (Tuesday, September 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8353-S8357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT TO THE PEOPLE'S 
                           REPUBLIC OF CHINA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4444, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4444) to authorize extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and to 
     establish a framework for relations between the United States 
     and the People's Republic of China.

  Pending:

       Wellstone amendment No. 4118, to require that the President 
     certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has 
     taken certain actions with respect to ensuring human rights 
     protection.
       Wellstone amendment No. 4119, to require that the President 
     certify to Congress that

[[Page S8354]]

     the People's Republic of China is in compliance with certain 
     Memoranda of Understanding regarding prohibition on import 
     and export of prison labor products.
       Wellstone amendment No. 4120, to require that the President 
     certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has 
     responded to inquiries regarding certain people who have been 
     detained or imprisoned and has made substantial progress in 
     releasing from prison people incarcerated for organizing 
     independent trade unions.
       Wellstone amendment No. 4121, to strengthen the rights of 
     workers to associate, organize and strike.
       Smith (of New Hampshire) amendment No. 4129, to require 
     that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the 
     cooperation of the People's Republic of China with respect to 
     POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, 
     slave labor, and organ harvesting.
       Byrd amendment No. 4117, to require disclosure by the 
     People's Republic of China of certain information relating to 
     future compliance with World Trade Organization subsidy 
     obligations.
       Byrd amendment No. 4131, to improve the certainty of the 
     implementation of import relief in cases of affirmative 
     determinations by the International Trade Commission with 
     respect to market disruption to domestic producers of like or 
     directly competitive products.
       Thompson amendment No. 4132, to provide for the application 
     of certain measures to covered countries in response to the 
     contribution to the design, production, development, or 
     acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or 
     ballistic or cruise missiles.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Does my friend from Nebraska have a statement?
  Mr. HAGEL. No, I do not.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4117

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the question before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the amendment offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia, No. 4117.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I will be direct and to the point. This 
amendment requires the U.S. Trade Representative, acting through the 
Working Party on the Accession of China to the World Trade 
Organization, to obtain a commitment from China to disclose information 
about state-owned enterprises that export products and government 
assistance given to those state-owned enterprises. My amendment also 
requests a timetable for China's compliance with WTO subsidy 
obligations.
  Even the staunchest supporters of permanent normal trade relations 
with China recognize that U.S. trade with China will continue to be an 
uphill battle insofar as fairness is concerned. The administration 
acknowledges this fact, and my good friend Senator Roth stated the same 
only yesterday.
  There are profound implications to Sino-American relations as a 
result of granting PNTR to China. State-owned enterprises continue to 
be the most significant source of employment in most areas in China, 
and some reports suggest that these subsidized enterprises account for 
as much as 65 percent of the jobs in many areas of China.
  Government control reigns supreme in China. My amendment sends a 
message that the U.S. Senate seeks transparency in China's likely 
accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO. My amendment places 
Members on record as demanding China's compliance with the promises 
that China has made under the bilateral trade agreement that it signed 
with the United States.
  Opponents of my amendment state that the amendment is redundant and 
flawed on two bases. First, it was argued that the administration is 
already required to condition the extension of permanent normal trade 
relations with the People's Republic of China on a finding that China's 
state-owned enterprises are not disruptive to our trading interests.
  With all due respect to my colleagues, with this bit of news that the 
subsidy issue rests on some administrative conclusion, I began 
immediately working double time to get this amendment passed. This news 
sounded the alarm. I think it would be better to have the information 
direct, and to make our own conclusions. The Senate has that latitude!
  In addition, if the President already has information to certify that 
China's state-owned enterprises are not disruptive to our trading 
interests, my amendment should present no problem. Let Members see the 
raw statistics. Let Members of Congress make up their own minds.
  What is the Administration trying to hide? I will have more 
confidence in what the administration says if I can review the material 
myself, and if Congress can review it.
  I have the same limited confidence in the proposed administrative 
review team that is supposed to keep an eye on China, which, as 
opponents of my amendment mentioned, the specifics on how this review 
team will operate has not yet been determined. Are Senators willing to 
leave this matter to fate?
  The opponents of my amendment also mentioned, and it is true, that 
China signed a bilateral agreement with the United States that 
proclaims that China will cease the use of subsidies prohibited under 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM 
Agreement), including those subsidies contingent upon export 
performance and subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over 
imported goods, which are strictly prohibited under the SCM agreement. 
The WTO subsidy agreements do, indeed, state that many subsidies are 
prohibited and shall not be allowed. I'm all for that!
  Why should we not know this information? Help me find out by voting 
in support of this amendment! Help me provide the U.S. steel industry, 
and other industries, with an assurance--based on more than a nod from 
the administration--that there are no illegal Chinese subsidies.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this side yields back all time as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from West Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 4117) was rejected.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am prepared to make a statement relating 
to Senator Thompson's amendment. However, I understand my colleague 
from Iowa has a scheduling conflict and therefore needs to complete a 
statement by 10:10. I therefore ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Grassley be recognized for up to 8 minutes and that I be recognized 
following his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I don't 
intend to object if I have an opportunity to follow--I ask that I may 
be recognized following Senator Hagel.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask 
unanimous consent that after Senator Kennedy speaks, it be in order for 
me to bring my amendment to the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I further revise my unanimous consent 
request to include Senator Wellstone's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
disposition of the amendment by Mr. Helms, my amendment at the desk be 
made the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 4132

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of Senator Thompson's 
legislation on weapons proliferation, I

[[Page S8355]]

want to tell my colleagues why I will not support this, or any other 
effort, to amend H.R. 4444, the legislation to authorize the permanent 
extension of nondiscriminatory trade treatment to the People's Republic 
of China.
  First, I want to say that I fully agree with Senator Thompson's 
goals. He wants to reduce the threat posed to the United States by the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  So do I.
  He wants to curb the transfer of technologies to rogue nations that 
might destabilize regional security, threaten our allies, or endanger 
United States forces.
  And so do I.
  In my view, this Administration has not done nearly enough to 
safeguard the United States from the growing threat of nuclear 
proliferation.
  You don't have to take my word for it.
  For anyone who thinks that the weapons anti-proliferation efforts of 
this administration have been adequate, and that the world is a safer 
place under the Clinton-Gore team, just take a look at the Cox 
Commission Report.
  Or the report of the Rumsfeld Commission.
  Both of these reports are compelling, and highly disturbing.
  But, this is neither the time nor the place to deal with these 
issues.
  The real issue today is whether we will approve this measure to 
extend permanent normal trade relations with China, and thereby allow 
the United States to take advantage of a market-opening trade agreement 
we helped negotiate.
  An agreement that will mean new sales, more jobs, and increased 
prosperity for America's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers, 
our service providers, and our manufacturing sector.
  I want to make this very clear:
  A vote to amend PNTR, at this late stage, is a vote against PNTR.
  If we change so much as one word of this PNTR legislation, it will 
not be consistent with the legislation passed by the House of 
Representatives, and will be sent back to that chamber.
  With less than 20 legislative days to go in this session of Congress, 
that would kill the PNTR bill for this year.
  And if PNTR is defeated, China will not suffer.
  China will still enter the WTO, whether we normalize our trade 
relations with them or not.
  If China enters the WTO, and we have not approved permanent normal 
trade relations status, our farmers, our service providers, our 
manufacturers will be forced to sit on the sidelines. Our competitors 
from Europe, Asia, and Canada will have China's market all to 
themselves. They will win a competitive advantage over us. Perhaps a 
permanent one.
  The only ones who would suffer would be our farmers, and our workers.
  Putting ourselves at this sort of disadvantage will hurt our economy.
  And it will not help our national security one bit.
  The problem I have with linking trade with national security, or with 
human rights, or with any other worthy cause, is that this sort of 
linkage assumes that we can only do one thing, but not the other.
  We can either have human rights in China, or we can have free trade.
  We can either protect our national security, or we can trade with 
China and jeopardize our security.
  I believe these assumptions are false.
  Our relationship with China is complex. It has more than one 
dimension.
  And I believe the United States is big enough, smart enough, tough 
enough, and sophisticated enough to have more than a one-dimensional 
China policy.
  We can have an effective human rights policy with China.
  We can have a tough and effective national security policy.
  And we can have a trade policy that serves our vital national 
interests.
  We can do all of this at the same time, and do it well.
  But not if we amend this bill and send it back to the House.
  One last thing.
  I read this morning that thousands of anti-globalization protesters 
rioted today at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, 
Australia. Scores of people were hurt. Almost one quarter of the 
delegates were locked out of the summit by the rioters.
  One Australian official was trapped for almost an hour in his 
vandalized car.
  Leaders of the riot claimed they were successful in blockading the 
conference.
  ``I think we can claim victory tonight'', one of the protest leaders 
said.
  The Melbourne riots come right on the heels of similar anti-
globalization riots in Davos, Switzerland, Washington, DC, and last 
December in Seattle.
  These riots are profoundly disturbing. They appear to be growing in 
intensity and frequency around the world. And they are terribly 
misguided.
  Since the United States helped create the global trading system in 
1947, free trade has lifted millions of people out of poverty.
  As poor nations have gained new prosperity, they have improved the 
health and education of their citizens.
  They have invested in new technologies to clean up the environment.
  And all the nations of the world's trade community have helped keep 
the peace, even during the bleak days of the Cold War.
  Today, China is on the verge of rejoining the world trade community 
it abandoned in 1950.
  A vote for normalizing China's trade relations with the United States 
on a permanent basis will reaffirm our support for a member-driven, 
rules-based trading system.
  It will highlight the importance of trade as a way to achieve 
prosperity for all, including the world's poorest nations.
  And it will repudiate those who would tear down the most successful 
multilateral trade forum the world has ever known.
  I urge my colleagues to support a clean PNTR bill, with no 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues 
to oppose the Thompson amendment.
  First, this is not a debate about whether national security or trade 
is the highest responsibility and priority of our Government. Of 
course, America's national security takes precedence over all other 
priorities. It is not helpful when we in this Chamber hear references 
to putting ``trade dollars and business interests ahead of national 
security.'' There is not one Member in this body who does not put 
America's national security interests ahead of all other interests, 
including trade interests. The national security interests of this 
country come first for all of us.
  That is not the issue. We need to understand very clearly the 
underlying bill granting China permanent normal trade relations. In 
granting PNTR to China, we allow our businesses and farmers the 
opportunity to take advantage of all the far reaching market-opening 
concessions China made to the United States when it signed the 
bilateral trade agreement with America last November. PNTR does not 
change or does not enhance China's access to America's markets. China 
has had access to our markets for years. It changes America's access to 
China's markets, which we have not had. There are no American trade 
concessions to China in PNTR. Our markets have long been open to China.
  Voting down PNTR means throwing away what the Chinese have finally 
agreed to do--give to our businesses and farmers a fair shot at their 
markets. We must be perfectly clear on this point as we continue this 
debate on PNTR. That is the issue.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thompson amendment, not because I 
think Senator Thompson is wrong about proliferation; quite the 
opposite. The proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass 
destruction clearly represents one of the most serious threats to the 
security of the United States. It is precisely because it is such a 
serious problem, with real implications for all Americans--by the way, 
implications for the world--that it needs to be treated seriously and 
responsibly.
  Tacking this amendment to PNTR without any consideration in any 
committee of jurisdiction, without one hearing from proliferation 
experts,

[[Page S8356]]

without understanding the national security, geopolitical, and economic 
consequences for America, would be irresponsible.
  Every Senator in this body agrees with Senator Thompson about the 
importance of stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
technology. I strongly disagree with his approach. His amendment would 
be bad for American nonproliferation efforts, bad for America's 
economic and trade interests, and bad for American national security. 
Proliferation is a global problem with implications for the security of 
the United States and all of our allies and friends across the world.
  We cannot deal effectively with proliferation on a unilateral basis. 
That approach will be ineffective and will only diminish our ability to 
influence the proliferator. We must have the help of our allies and our 
friends. It is folly to believe that unilateral sanctions by one nation 
will stop any nation from its proliferation activities, if that is the 
intent. It isn't that simple. History has shown clearly that unilateral 
sanctions are unworkable tools of foreign policy. They end up injuring 
the interests of the sanctioning nation. The only time a unilateral 
sanction may be effective is when it covers a unique American product 
or technology for which there is no foreign availability. Most of all, 
the items and technologies covered by the Thompson amendment do not fit 
this category. If we prohibit the sale of these items and technologies 
without ensuring that our allies and friends are on board, we simply 
diminish our influence over the target country. At the heart of the 
debate is how best to influence the behavior of proliferating nations.

  Unilateral sanctions will not encourage more responsible behavior on 
the part of China or any other country. This amendment might terminate 
a number of assistance programs that are clearly in America's interests 
to continue. For example, one of the sanctions in the Thompson 
amendment calls for a cutoff in Export-Import Bank financing for 
exports to the target country. Now, Export-Import Bank financing is 
designed to assist American exporters in their efforts to compete in 
foreign markets for business. It does not and has never been designed 
to assist foreigners. Cutting off Export-Import Bank financing hurts 
American exports. It is hard to imagine how this could have a positive 
effect on the target country's proliferation behavior.
  The American people are going to elect a new American President in 2 
short months. Proliferation will be a major issue for the new 
President. The new President and his team must come up with a 
comprehensive strategy for dealing with it. It is not in the best 
interests of our national security to handicap our new President by 
tying his hands with the provisions in this amendment. I believe that 
China's entry into the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and our 
granting of PNTR to China, is of enormous strategic importance to the 
United States. It is not only a matter of trade. It is not only about 
leveling the playing field for American businesses and farmers who have 
never had a fair shot at China's markets. At its core, it is about 
helping to set China on the road to becoming a responsible member of 
the global community. It is about taking advantage of an unprecedented 
opportunity to help the Chinese people gain more control over their own 
destinies.

  We have heard, over the last few days, about human rights, religious 
rights, freedoms. All encompass this dynamic. Do we believe that we 
influence the behavior of a totalitarian nation to be better to its 
people and give its people more opportunities and enhance their lives, 
give them more control over their own destinies, by walking away from 
such a relationship? I do not think so. It has never been proven to be 
the case in history, and I do not think it will be proven to be the 
case this time.
  WTO membership does not permit the Chinese Government to exercise the 
kind of control over people's lives as it has over the past 50 years. 
Membership in the WTO requires the Chinese Government to undertake 
painful economic and legal reforms and to open its markets, open its 
society. Is this perfect? Of course not. Are there flaws? Of course 
there are. Are there imperfections? Of course there are. Will there be 
problems implementing it? Of course there will be. All of these things 
are in America's strategic interest, however. We need to support 
China's accession to the WTO and grant them PNTR.
  But if we attach this amendment, then we will not pass PNTR this 
year. As my friend from Iowa so succinctly put it: It will go down. And 
in whose best interest is that? Let us not forget that trade and 
prosperity encourage and enhance freedom, peace, and stability in the 
world.
  This amendment would also have a negative impact on our ability to 
gather intelligence on proliferators. The amendment requires the 
President to report to the Congress the names of every suspected 
proliferator in an unclassified report. Although this amendment urges 
the President to do this in a way that protects sensitive intelligence 
sources, it is unclear, of course, how that will happen. How will 
sources be protected if Congress follows the expedited voting 
procedures in this amendment for overturning a Presidential 
determination that sanctions should not be imposed for national 
security reasons? How will we debate the correctness of the President's 
decision without talking about the intelligence information that led to 
the President's decision in the first place? It is impossible. Do we 
believe that by exposing our intelligence sources, by telling the world 
what we suspect or know, we can have a positive effect on 
proliferation?
  We invest millions and millions of dollars and engage in multiyear 
projects to gain intelligence on proliferation activities around the 
world. We should not jeopardize that effort by having the President 
issue an unclassified report to Congress that lays out exactly what we 
know and how we were able to determine what we know.
  The amendment also seeks to involve our capital markets in foreign 
policy issues. I do not think--and this is as kindly as I can say it--
that this is a wise course of action under any circumstances. America 
is stronger because the world regards our markets, our capital markets, 
our financial markets, as the most trustworthy, honest, stable, and 
most fairly regulated in the world. In no place in our present system 
are America's capital markets used as a device of foreign policy. This 
would be dangerously irresponsible and unprecedented, and this would be 
done without one congressional hearing to examine the consequences of 
such action.

  America is the preeminent capital market in the world, but that 
position is under constant challenge. International investors can move 
their money, issue their stocks, access capital anywhere in the world, 
with the click of a mouse. Why would we want to inject new political 
redtape and risks and uncertainty into a system that hangs on such a 
precarious balance? For what? Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
has been quoted on numerous occasions in the last few days on this 
issue. I remind my colleagues what Chairman Greenspan said about the 
Thompson proposal:

       So a most fundamental concern about this particular 
     amendment is, it doesn't have any capacity of which I am 
     aware to work. And by being put in effect, the only thing 
     that strikes me as a reasonable expectation is it can harm us 
     more than it would harm others.

  This amendment would cast a long shadow of doubt over the American 
financial market system. This is not in the best interests of America.
  I oppose this amendment because it has never received any 
consideration in any committee of jurisdiction. We have not heard from 
proliferation experts as to how this amendment would affect our 
national security. Proliferation is too serious, much too serious to 
deal with it in this manner. How much time have all our colleagues had 
to understand this, to develop an appreciation for the consequences of 
this action? How much time have we put into this? We know there have 
been four versions. The first I believe that any of us had a chance to 
look at this was yesterday. That is not responsible legislation.
  I oppose this amendment because it employs unilateral sanctions which 
history has proven are an ineffective way to achieve foreign policy 
goals. The amendment would tie the hands of the next President before 
he has had a chance to develop a comprehensive

[[Page S8357]]

global nonproliferation policy. It would jeopardize intelligence 
sources and would cut off programs that are designed to benefit 
American exporters such as the Export-Import Bank. None of this makes 
any sense. These consequences would be very harmful to America's 
interests. I oppose this amendment because it injects foreign policy 
considerations into our financial regulatory and market systems. This 
would start us down a very dangerous and unprecedented path that would 
ultimately weaken our markets and consequently weaken this country.
  The underlying bill, PNTR, is of strategic significance to the United 
States. Passage of this bill, coupled with China's entering into the 
WTO, will help set China on the path toward economic and political 
reform, which is clearly in our national interest. It is clearly in the 
interests of the world. If we attach the Thompson amendment or any 
amendment to PNTR, we effectively kill PNTR this year and maybe for 
some time to come.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
all amendments to PNTR, and strongly support PNTR.
  I yield the floor.
  I believe we have a unanimous consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.

                          ____________________