[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.
____________________